Ramesh Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar - Patna High Court, 03 August 2026

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11538 of 2026 ====================================================== Ramesh Kumar S/o Asharfi Lall proprietor M/s National Electric Company 1 Hotel Fort Campus, Station Road, P.S kotwali P.O GPO Patna 800001 Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through its Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, P.S Secretariat, P.O- GPO, Patna- 800001. 2. The Additional Commissioner Sales Tax, Kar Bhawan Verchand Patel Marg P.S Kotwali P.O. G.P.O, Patna, -800001 3. The Joint Commissioner Sales Tax, Administration Kar Bhawan Verchand Patel Marg P.S Kotwali P.O. G.P.O, Patna, -800001. 4. The Joint Commissioner Sales Tax appeal Patna West Circle, Kar Bhawan Veerchand Patel Marg P.S Kotwali P.O. G.P.O, Patna, 800001 5. Dy Commissioner Sales Tax Patna West Circle, Kar Bhawan Veerchand Patel Marg P.S Kotwali P.O. G.P.O, Patna, -800001 6. Joint Commissioner Sales Tax Patna West Circle, Kar Bhawan, Anta Ghat P.S Pirbahore P.O. Bankipore, Patna, -800001 7. The Assistant Commissioner Sales Tax, Kar Bhawan Anta Ghat P.S Pirbahore P.O. Bankipore, Patna, -800001. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prakash Sahay, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (7) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH KUMAR

ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH KUMAR) 2 03-08-2026 Heard Mr. Prakash Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vivek Prasad, learned GP-07 for the respondent department.

In the present case, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 30.03.2026 passed by respondent no. 4, 2/5 whereby appeal preferred by petitioner was rejected on the ground of limitation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a registered person and is a retailer of electric goods .

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the period 2017-18, it was served with the show cause notice dated 21.07.2023 in Form DRC-01A and the respondent no. 7 has passed the order dated 15.12.2023 under Section 73(9) of BGST/CGST Act, 2017 imposing a liability against tax/penalty and interest.

Learned counsel for the petitioner against the impugned order dated 15.12.2023 has preferred an appeal under the provision Section 107 of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017 on 29.01.2026 which was rejected by the learned Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.03.2026 on the ground of limitation as it was filed after the period of 25 months and 14 days from the date of passing of the order under Section 73(9) of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in filing of appeal is bona-fide and the delay in filing of the appeal may be condone by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of power under Section 226 of the Constitution of India.

3/5

Per Contra, Mr. Vivek Prasad, learned GP-07 for the respondent department submits that the petitioner was served with the show cause notice as well as three reminders dated 01.09.2023, 14.09.2023, 25.11.2023 and with opportunity of personal hearing dated 04.12.2023 but the petitioner has choose not to reply the show cause notice. Further, the petitioner in its indolent approach has not filed the appeal within the stipulated period of three months under the provision of Section 107 of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017. The learned Appellate Authority has rightly rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner as it has no power to condone the delay beyond a period of one months.

Heard the parties and upon due appreciation of the respective submissions, we are of the opinion that the fact of present case is squarely covered by Judgment dated 14.07.2026 passed by this Court in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026 (M.K. Traders Vrs. State of Bihar and Ors.). The relevant paragraph 10, 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 are reproduced hereinbelow:-

10.

Further coming to issue no. (ii), whether this Court has power under Article 226 to condone the delay beyond a period of 30 days within the meaning of Section 107(4) of the BGST Act 2017, has succinctly been answered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and Ors Vrs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, reported in (2020)19 SCC 681.

10.1.

The Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act 4/5 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.

10.2.

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 juri iction under Section 117(2) proviso of this BGST Act 2017, for condonation of delay in filing of an application before respective Forum.

10.3.

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, it is admitted position that the petitioner has filed an appeal after a delay of 25 months 14 days from the date of passing of order dated 15.12.2023. The Appellate Authority has rightly rejected the appeal preferred by 5/5 the petitioner and this court in terms of Judgment passed in the matter of M.K. Traders Vrs. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra) and has no power to condone the delay beyond one month in filing of statutory appeal under Section 107 of CGST/BGST Act, 2017. 10. Accordingly, the present writ application is dismissed.

Rohit/- (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) ( Vikash Kumar, J) U