M/S Chandra Bhsuhan Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

In present case, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 30.09.2024 passed by respondent no. 3 under Section 73(9) of BGST/CGST Act, 2017 for period 2022- 2023. The petitioner further prays for quashing of notice dated 14.10.2023 issued in FORM DRC-01A and further prays for quashing of order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the learned 2/6 Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a proprietorship firm, engaged in providing government work contract and related services under the name style of M/S Chandra Bhushan Kumar. It is a registered person having GSTIN No. 10HGOPK5576C1ZC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 3 vide notice dated 14.10.2023 and show cause notice dated 16.12.2023 for period 2022-2023 has issued notices in Form DRC-O1A and DRC-01 respectively and further reminder notices dated 02.08.2024 and 12.09.2024 was issued by respondent no. 3. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was unaware of the notices which were uploaded on the portal as it could be accessed only through additional notice column and it was not on the main dashboard of the petitioner GST profile and on account of this reason the petitioner could not know about the notices and reply could not be submitted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 25.03.2025 an appeal was filed with delay of 71 days on the ground of medical incapacity and lack of notice. The learned 3/6 Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.03.2025 rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation and petitioner relies on Judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in the matter of has been mandated by the Patna High Court in the matter of M/s

Per contra, Mr. Vivek Prasad, learned G.P – 7 appearing for the respondent department submits that by the impugned order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner Appeal, Patna East Division, Patna, has rightly rejected the belated appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has filed appeal on 25.03.2025 against the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Biharsharif, Circle Biharsharif after a period of six months. As 4/6 per the provision of Section 107 of the BGST Act, learned Appellate Authority can condone a delay of only one month.

Heard the parties, upon due appreciation of the respective submissions, we are of the opinion that the facts of the present case is squarely covered by Judgment dated 14.07.2026 passed by this Court in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026 (MK Traders Vs. The State of Bihar & 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.

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 5/6 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 present case, admittedly the petitioner against the order dated 30.09.2024 has filed the the appeal on 25.03.2025 which is beyond the period condonable by the learned Appellate Authority. The petitioner was served with the notice as well as the reminders on the common portal which is a valid mode of service as per Section 169 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017. The petitioner is mandated to file an appeal within a period of three months from the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 which it has failed.

This Hon’ble Court in the matter of MK Traders (supra) has held that the learned Appellate Authority as well as this Court has no power to condone the delay in filing of the 6/6 appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017 beyond a period of one month.

Accordingly, the learned Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.03.2025 has rightly rejected the belated appeal filed by the petitioner. It requires no interference by this Court.

The writ application is dismissed.