M/S Rajeev Ranjan Security Agency vs. The State Of Bihar

Original PDF →
CWJC/6538/2025HC PatnaGSTCNR BRHC01033366202506 August 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA,MR. JUSTICE VIKASH KUMAR4 pages

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6538 of 2025 ====================================================== M/s Rajeev Ranjan Security Agency through proprietor, Rajeev Ranjan, Son of Bipin Bihari Sinha, aged about 59 years, Male, Resident of flat no 702, block-B, Moon height apartment, Near SBI Bank Gola Road, Danapur, District-Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner of State Taxes, New Secreteriat, Patna Bihar 2. The Commissioner of State Taxes, New Secreteriat, Patna 3. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Patna Special Circle, Patna 4. The Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal), Patna Central Division, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar @ Alok Kr Shahi, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (7) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH KUMAR

ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA) 5 06-08-2026

1.

The petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the appellate authority, i.e., Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal), by which the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of delay. The petitioner is a proprietor of M/s Rajeev Ranjan Security Agency and is a dealer registered having GSTIN No. 10AEWPR4178N1ZP. The petitioner submitted the returns and the adjudicating authority passed the assessment order on 08.04.2024, imposing tax liability upon the 2/4 petitioner.

2.

It is the case of the petitioner that the order passed by the adjudicating authority was not uploaded on the portal and/or petitioner could not visit the portal, however, the demand notice, pursuant to the assessment order, was sent to the petitioner through email on 14.10.2024. The petitioner, after receipt of demand notice, obtained the detailed order and filed appeal before the appellate authority within a period of 120 days on 30.01.2025. 3. Referring to Section 107 (4) of the GST Act, learned counsel submits that the appellate authority has the power to condone the delay after 90 days to the extent of one month. The appeal of the petitioner has been filed after 106 days and the same is condonable under the statute. The appellate authority, without taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, has mechanically rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of delay.

4.

Learned counsel next submits that if the date of sending demand notice to the petitioner on his email, i.e. on 14.10.2024, is taken into consideration, the appeal filed by the petitioner was within 120 days.

5.

Mr. G.P.-7, learned counsel for the State, on the 3/4 other hand, opposes the submission of the petitioner and submits that the assessment order was uploaded on the portal on 20.12.2023, and from the date of uploading of the assessment order, the appeal is time barred and was not condonable under the provisions of Section 107 of the GST Act.

6.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material facts including the relevant provisions of the Act.

7.

The case of the respondent is that the order passed by the assessing authority was uploaded on the portal much earlier on 20.12.2023, however, the petitioner is disputing this fact and has submitted that he came to know about the assessment order after the demand notice was served upon him on 14.10.2024 and if the date of communication on the email is taken into account, the appeal has been filed within a period of 120 days and it comes under the condonable delay.

8.

Considering the aforesaid discussion and the interest of justice, we remand the matter back before the appellate authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of two months after considering the petition to be filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay within a period of 15 days.

4/4

9.

With the aforesaid direction, the present writ application is disposed.

HarshPandey/- (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) ( Vikash Kumar, J) U

Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.