M/S Rajat Indane Services Through Its Proprietor Rajesh Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

In present case, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 25.04.2024 passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017 and for quashing of order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a proprietor of the gas agency and is engaged in the business of distribution and sale of LPG cylinders.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was issued with show cause notice under Section 73(1) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017 in Form DRC-01 on 09.12.2023. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the show cause notice dated 09.12.2023 and three other reminders dated 20.02.2024, 18.04.2024 and 22.04.2024 were sent on the portal under heading ‘additional notices and orders’ and no physical service was made to it and the respondents have passed the ex-parte order dated 25.04.2024. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 25.04.2024, has preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017 on 14.01.2025, which was dismissed solely on the ground of limitation without any consideration to merit vide order dated 17.01.2025. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the learned Appellate Tribunal has not been constituted, the petitioner has filed the present writ application before this Hon’ble Court.

Per contra, Mr. Vivek Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent department submits that the 3/5 petitioner was served with the show cause notice dated 09.12.2023 on the common portal and subsequently three other reminders dated 29.02.2024, 18.04.2024 and 22.04.2024 were served on the common portal as well as on the E-mail ID of the petitioner and in this regard, SMS was also sent on the registered mobile no. of the petitioner, but the petitioner has failed to submit its reply, compelling the proper officer to pass the impugned order of assessment.

Learned counsel for the respondent department further submits that as per the mandate of Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017 the petitioner is required to file an appeal, if aggrieved, within a period of three months from the date of passing of the impugned order. The learned Appellate Authority is empowered to condone the delay of only one month on satisfaction of the fact of reasonable cause. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed the appeal before the learned Appellate Authority after almost nine months and the Appellate Authority has rightly rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

Heard the parties. Upon due appreciation of the respective submission 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.

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 5/5 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 was served with the show cause notice alongwith the three reminders to which the petitioner failed to adduce any reply. Even the petitioner has not filed an appeal within the statutory period of three months. The appeal was filed after a delay of nine months.

In terms of the detailed Judgment passed by this Court in the matter of M.K. Traders Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors. (Supra), learned Appellate Authority as well as this Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not empowered to condone the delay beyond a period of one month.

Accordingly, the present writ application is not entertainable and is dismissed.