M/S The Works Company vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s The Works Company, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its delayed appeal by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal), West Division Patna, vide Annexure-3. The appeal was rejected for being filed beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax (BGST) Act. Section 107 allows three months for filing an appeal, with an additional one month for condonation of delay upon furnishing a satisfactory explanation. The petitioner's appeal was rejected even beyond this extended period. The Court noted a subsequent notification by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) extending the time for filing appeals against orders passed under Sections 73 and 74 of the BGST Act.

Held

The Court held that while generally, neither the Appellate Authority nor the High Court under Article 226 can condone delay beyond the statutory period provided in Section 107 of the BGST Act, Notification No. 53 of 2023-Central Tax offers a special procedure for filing delayed appeals against orders under Sections 73 and 74 of the BGST Act. This notification extends the time for filing appeals up to January 31, 2024. The Court found that the petitioner's appeal, though initially rejected for delay, could be restored to the file of the Appellate Authority, provided the petitioner satisfies the conditions laid down in paragraph 3 of the said notification. These conditions include paying the admitted portion of tax, interest, fine, fee, and penalty, and 12.5% of the remaining disputed tax amount (subject to a cap of twenty-five crore rupees), with at least 20% of this 12.5% paid from the Electronic Cash Ledger. The Court set aside the impugned order of rejection on the condition that the petitioner complies with these requirements by January 31, 2024. If conditions are met, the appeal will be considered on merits; otherwise, the rejection order stands.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, can condone delay in filing an appeal beyond the period prescribed by Section 107 of the BGST Act, even when a specific statutory period for delayed appeals exists? 2. Whether the conditions stipulated in Notification No. 53 of 2023-Central Tax, dated 02.11.2023, which extends the time for filing appeals against orders under Sections 73 and 74 of the BGST Act, are applicable and can be satisfied by the petitioner to have their delayed appeal considered on merits? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner implicitly argued that the subsequent notification provided a mechanism to overcome the delay in filing the appeal, and therefore, the appeal should be considered on merits subject to fulfilling the conditions of the notification. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent, through the Government Pleader, did not explicitly record arguments. However, the initial rejection of the appeal by the Appellate Authority was based on the petitioner's failure to adhere to the statutory limitation period.