Pawan Kumar Prabhat vs. The Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH KUMAR) 2 12-08-2026 Heard Mr. Achintya Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader-7 for the respondents.
In present writ application, the petitioner has prayed for commanding the Respondent No. 3, i.e. the Additional Commissioner, Appeal, State Tax, Bhagalpur Circle, Bhagalpur to accept the filing of memo of appeal against order dated 30.07.2024, passed by Respondent No. 4, that is the Superintendent, CGST and CX, Range- Banka, after condoning 2/7 the delay of filing an appeal after two years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is proprietor of the firm namely Pawan Kumar Prabhat having GSTIN No. 10ARXPP-244342Z1 and engaged in taxable supply under GST as well as contract work for supply of material for various use.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that for financial year 2018-19 tax could not be paid by the petitioner and pursuant thereto the concerned respondent issued several notices to the petitioner for payment of GST of Rs. 3,00,928/-.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner was in some personal difficulty during the relevant period, but has filed return in GSTR-3B. Its registration was cancelled on 31.12.2018 and after service of notice dated 04.12.2023, the concerned authority has passed the impugned order dated 30.07.2024 to ask the petitioner to pay a total liability of tax amounting to Rs. 3,00,928. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on its application the Respondent No. 4 has issued a rectification order and made a demand of Rs. 5,86,040 as tax payable by the petitioner after rectification up to March 2020. 3/7
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that due to unavoidable situation appeal against the order dated 30.07.2024, passed by respondent could not be filed within the statutory period and the petitioner is now ready to prefer the appeal against the order dated 30.07.2024 and prayed for condonation of delay in filing of appeal, and hence has filed the present writ application.
Mr. Vivek Prasad, learned GP-7 for the Respondent Department, contests the matter and submits that the petitioner has filed the present writ application almost after a delay of 22 months of passing of the rectification order dated 13.01.2025 and after a delay of about two years from the passing of the impugned order under Section 73 sub-section (9) of CGST/BGST Act 2017, dated 30.07.2024 and submits that on the ground of delay itself the present writ application is fit to be rejected.
Heard the parties and with due appreciation of the respective submissions, we are of the opinion that the facts of present case is covered by the judgment dated 14.07.2024 passed by this Court in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026 (M/s M K Traders Vs State of Bihar & Ors.) The relevant paragraph 9, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 are reproduced hereinbelow:- 4/7 “9. To start with issue no. (i)- the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 07.02.2023, passed by respondent no. 3 under Section 73(9) of the BGST Act 2017 (Annexure P/3 of the writ application) has filed belated appeal on 02.04.2024 under Section 107 of BGST Act 2017, which was rejected by the learned Appellate Authority on the ground of its competence to condone the delay beyond 30 days. The petitioner instead of filing appeal before learned GST Tribunal under Section 112 of BGST Act 2017, on the ground of its non availability has filed the present writ application on 24.03.2026 i.e., almost after a delay of three years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CIT Vrs Chhabil Dass Agrawal reported in (2014)ISCC 603 has held that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievance, writ petition should not be entertained
ignoring
said statutory dispensation. Even if contention of petitioner as regard belated communication of order and available alternative remedy being non available are accepted then also in the circumstances of delayed filing of writ application for more than 3 years, the present writ
application
is not entertainable under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 06.05.2022 in the matter of CCT Vrs Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. [reported in (2020)19 SCC 681]
5/7 in specific terms has restrained the High Court from entertaining writ application filed beyond the statutory period of appeal. “10. 1. The Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, is a special Act and provision of Section 162 bars the juri iction of civil Court, save as provided in Section 117 and 118 of the Act to deal with or decide any question arising from or relating to anything done or purported to be done under this Act. Section 117 of the Act mandates the High Court to exercise its Appellate juri iction against the order passed by the State Benches of the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 109. Section 117(2) provides for filing of appeal to High Court writ in 180 days and the proviso empowers is to condone the delay after appreciation of sufficient cause for not filing it within such prescribed period. The provision of Section 118 relates with appeal to Hon’ble Supreme Court from any order passed by Principal Bench of the Appellate Tribunal.
Accordingly, provision of Section 162 bars the juri iction of civil Court in reference to Section 107 of the BGST Act and legislature in its wi om has restricted a limit of 30 days to Appellate Authority under Section 107(4), three months to Appellate Tribunal for filing appeal/45 days for filing memorandum of cross-objection under Section 112(6) and the High Court in exercise of its Appellate 6/7 juri iction under Section 117(2) proviso of this BGST Act 2017, for condonation of delay in filing of an application before respective Forum.
Therefore, the condonation of delay by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India in filing of appeal under Section 107 of BGST Act 2017 in our opinion, will be against the legislative intent manifested in the provision of BGST Act 2017. It is true that High Court has wide juri iction under Article 226 of constitution of India but does not mean that it can disregard the substantive provision of a Statute. Accordingly, we come to the conclusion that this Court can’t entertain the present writ application filed after expiry of prescribed time limit”.
In present case, against the impugned order dated 30.07.2024 the petitioner has a remedy of appeal under the provision of Section 107 of CGST/BGST Act which he has not availed within the statutory period. This Court in a detailed judgment dated 14.07.2026 in M/s M K Traders Vs The State of Bihar & Ors. (Supra), the learned Appellate Authority and this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of constitution of India has no power to condone the delay more than one month under the provision of Section 107 of the BGST/CGST Act 2017. 7/7
Accordingly, the prayer of petitioner is not tenable in eyes of the law and the writ application is dismissed.
ritesh/- (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) ( Vikash Kumar, J) U
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.