Ravindra Kumar @ Raveendra Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

In present writ application, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 14.05.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeal), CGST and CX (Appeal), Patna, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of limitation. The petitioner 2/5 further prays for quashing of order dated 04.05.2022 as it was passed without issuing show cause notice to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was registered under GST having GSTIN No. 10CALPK6367H3ZL.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that its registration has been cancelled on 04.05.2022 by the Superintendents CGST and CX, Motihari Range, on the ground that it has not filed return for continuous period of six months and it was cancelled suo moto w.e.f. 01.04.2022 under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against order dated 04.05.2022 the petitioner has preferred an appeal on 04.04.2024 through online and hard copy was submitted on 05.04.2024, after a delay of more than two years.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent returning the provisions of Section 107 of CGST/BGST Act 2017 submits that the learned Appellate Authority has rightly rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation, filed after delay of almost two years.

Learned counsel for the respondent department submits that the provision provides for filing of appeal within a 3/5 period of three months only. Further if the Appellate Authority satisfy that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month. So in effect, the appeal can be condoned by the Appellate Authority for one month only.

Heard the parties, upon due appreciation of the respective submissions, this Court is 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 4/5 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, admittedly against impugned order dated 04.05.2022, the appeal was mandatorily to be filed before 03.08.2022 without application for condonation of delay but the appeal was filed on 04.04.2024. The appeal was filed almost after a period of 20 months which cannot be condoned by the learned Appellate Authority and rightly has been rejected. The petitioner in its indolent approach has filed the present writ application after a delay of more than three years nine months from the date of order 5/5 of cancellation of registration dated 04.05.2022 and one year nine months from the date of order dated 14.05.2024 passed by the learned Appellate Authority.

Accordingly, the present writ application in terms of the Judgment passed by this Court in the matter of MK Traders Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Supra) is not entertainable eschewing this Court to consider the present matter on merit.

However, the petitioner, if so advised is at liberty to file Final Return in terms of Section 45 of the CGST/BGST Act 2017 and make fresh application for registration.

With the abovesaid liberty, the present writ application is disposed of.