Kumar Mritunjay Construction Private Limited vs. The State Of Bihar

In the present writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 25.03.2024, passed by the learned Appellate Authority in Appeal Case No. GST/BS-36/23-

He further prays that respondent no.2 be directed to restore registration under Section 22 of the Act to enable filing of return and payment of tax in accordance therewith.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a registered person and is engaged in the business of construction services and mainly performs the assignment of government contractor.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 19.08.2020, a show cause notice was issued to the effect that why registration should not be cancelled and a reply was sought to the show cause notice within seven working days on the ground of non-filing of return or failure to furnish return for a continuous period of 6 months.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not comply with the notice on account of non-performance by the accountant. The notice was not served on the E-mail or at the address of the petitioner and its registration was cancelled vide order dated 11.09.2020. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order dated 11.09.2020, it filed an appeal to the Appellate Authority, but the appeal preferred was rejected vide order dated 25.03.2024, on the ground of limitation.

Per contra, Mr. Vivek Prasad, learned GP07 appearing for the respondent department submits that against the order of cancellation dated 11.09.2020, the petitioner has a 3/5 remedy under Section 30 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, for filing of revocation application which it has not filed. Instead, it has filed a belated appeal on 17.03.2024 i.e., more than 42 months after the cause of action arose.

Learned counsel for the respondent department submits that the learned Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 25.03.2024, has rightly rejected the belated appeal preferred by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the respondent department further submits that even the present writ application has been filed after a delay of almost one year from the impugned order dated 25.03.2024 passed by the learned Appellate Authority and on this sole ground alone, the present writ application is fit to be rejected.

Heard the parties and on due appreciation of the respective submissions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is covered by Judgment dated 14.07.2026 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6180 of 2026 (M.K. Traders Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors.) The relevant paragraphs 10, 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 are reproduced hereinbelow:-

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 4/5 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 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 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 the present case, the petitioner admittedly has not filed its reply to the show cause notice issued under Section 29 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017. The petitioner in its indolent approach has filed the statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017 after a delay of 42 months. Further, the present writ application filed by the petitioner is almost after 5 years after passing of the order of cancellation, which in opinion of this Court and in light of the Judgment passed by this Court in the matter of M.K. Traders Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors. (Supra), cannot be condoned.

Accordingly, the present writ application is dismissed.