M/S. Bonanza Portfolio Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA

In present case, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the appellate order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the 2/7 learned Additional Commissioner (Appeal), Patna, Central Division, Patna whereby the same was dismissed on the ground of delay in filing of appeal. The petitioner further prays for quashing of ex-parte assessment order dated 13.08.2024 passed under Section 74 of the BGST Act, 2017 for period 2019-20 on the ground of non service of notice by any mode of the service contemplated under Section 169 of the BGST Act, 2017 and granting of an opportunity of hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the BGST Act, 2017. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a registered person having GSTIN 10AAACB0764B1ZN and is engaged in the developing business and for period 2019-20 filed its return and deposited the admitted tax as per its books of accounts and discharged its statutory duties for payment of tax to the respondent department.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the month of January 2025, petitioner learnt from the office of the respondent Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Patna Central Circle, Patna that an ex-parte impugned order dated 13.08.2024 has been passed under Section 74 of the BGST Act, 2017 for period 2019-20, whereby a total demand including interest and 3/7 penalty to the tune of Rs. 2,72,29,864/- has been raised against it.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that upon receiving of the information, the accountant perused the GST portal of the petitioner and it was learnt that under the heading ‘Notices and Orders’ registration certificate was issued and no other notice of any nature or order of any kind was uploaded on the common portal and on clicking the link having heading ‘Additional Notices and Orders’, petitioner learnt that all six documents appeared to have been uploaded on various dates including the ex-parte impugned order of assessment dated 13.08.2024. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though he admits the communication of notices and orders on E- mail, but due to oversight it could not catch the attention of the petitioner and having learned of the passing of the impugned order on 31.01.2025, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the BGST Act, 2017 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking delay in filing of the appeal but the appeal was rejected vide order dated 27.02.2025 on the ground of delay in submission of appeal.

Per contra, Mr. Vivek Prasad, learned counsel 4/7 appearing for the respondent department, referring to paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit, submits that the respondents on detection of the discrepancies have served a show cause notice dated 31.05.2024 on the petitioner through GST portal followed by three reminders sent through GST portal as well as E-mail with opportunity of personal hearing but petitioner did not act or respond to any of the communication, compelling the proper officer to pass the impugned order dated 13.08.2024. The assessment orders/demand notices were also served through GST portal as well as E-mail. The petitioner has assailed the assessment order dated 13.08.2024 on 18.02.2025 before the learned Appellate Authority under the provision of Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017. And relying on the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the matter of M/s Vishwanath Traders Vrs. Union of India [affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 15594/2023], states that the present writ application is fit to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the respondent department further referring to personal affidavit, filed by respondent no. 6 in compliance of the order dated 01.07.2025, in present proceeding has submitted that the show cause notice was 5/7 followed by three reminders sent through GST portal as well as E-mail with opportunity of personal hearing and has brought on record the photocopy of confirmation of the E-mail sent on the registered E-mail ID of the petitioner and SMS sent on the registered mobile no. of the petitioner received from the GSTN and submits that proper opportunity of hearing has been adduced to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the respondent department submits that as per the provision of Section 107 of CGST/BGST Act, 2017, has power to condone the delay of only one month and the learned Appellate Authority has rightly rejected the belated appeal filed by the petitioner after delay of more than three months.

Heard the parties. Upon due appreciation of the respective submission, this Court is of 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 part of paragraphs 10- 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 are reproduced hereinbelow-

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 6/7 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 present case, from the personal affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 6, it is clear that the petitioner was duly served with the show cause notice as well as the three reminders on common portal, by mode of E-mail as well as S.M.S. sent to it on registered mobile no. Therefore, proper opportunity of hearing was adduced to the petitioner. The petitioner in its indolent approach has failed to respond to the notices, and also failed to file a statutory appeal within a period of three months. The provision of Section 107 of the 7/7 CGST/BGST Act, 2017, empowers the learned Appellate Authority and this Court to condone a delay only up to a period of further one month and not beyond.

Accordingly, in terms of Judgment passed by this Court in the matter of M.K. Traders (Supra), the present writ application is not entertainable and is dismissed.