Tuntun Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Tuntun Kumar, filed a delayed appeal before the Additional Commissioner, State Tax (Appeal), Bhagalpur Division, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority (Annexure-7) due to being filed beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 107 of the BGST Act. Section 107 allows three months for filing an appeal, with an additional one month for delayed appeals if a satisfactory explanation is provided. The petitioner's appeal was filed beyond even this extended period. Subsequently, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs issued Notification No. 53 of 2023-Central Tax, dated 02.11.2023, extending the time for filing appeals against orders passed under Sections 73 and 74 of the BGST Act on or before 31.03.2023, up to 31.01.2024, subject to certain conditions.

Held

The Court held that while the Appellate Authority and the High Court under Article 226 cannot condone delay beyond the period provided in Section 107 of the BGST Act, Notification No. 53 of 2023 provides a special procedure for filing delayed appeals against orders under Sections 73 and 74 of the BGST Act passed on or before 31.03.2023, extending the filing deadline to 31.01.2024. The Court found that the petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the first Appellate Authority. Therefore, it was deemed proper to restore the appeal to the files of the Appellate Authority, subject to the petitioner satisfying the conditions laid down in paragraph 3 of the Notification. These conditions include paying the admitted portion of tax, interest, fine, fee, and penalty, and 12.5% of the remaining disputed tax (with at least 20% of this 12.5% paid from the Electronic Cash Ledger), subject to a maximum of twenty-five crore rupees. The Court set aside the impugned order (Annexure-7) on the condition that the petitioner fulfills these requirements by 31.01.2024. If the conditions are satisfied, the appeal will be considered on merits; otherwise, the impugned order will stand restored. The ratio is that statutory notifications providing special schemes for condoning delays, if followed, can be availed even for appeals initially rejected on grounds of limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, can condone delay in filing an appeal beyond the period stipulated in Section 107 of the BGST Act, even when a specific statutory period for delayed appeals is provided? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 53 of 2023-Central Tax, dated 02.11.2023, for filing a delayed appeal, and if so, what are the conditions precedent for availing this benefit? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the appeal was rejected due to delay. They likely relied on the subsequent Notification No. 53 of 2023 to seek condonation of delay and restoration of their appeal, arguing that the notification provides a special procedure for filing delayed appeals up to 31.01.2024, even for appeals filed beyond the normal limitation period. They would argue that the conditions stipulated in the notification should be applied. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue likely argued that the appeal was correctly rejected by the Appellate Authority as it was filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 107 of the BGST Act. They would have pointed to the pronouncements of the High Court and the Supreme Court stating that delays beyond the statutory limit cannot be condoned. They might also argue that the conditions under the notification were not met.