M/S Raoshan Enterprises vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Raoshan Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its delayed appeal by the first Appellate Authority. The appeal was rejected as it was filed beyond the one-month extended period provided under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax (BGST) Act for filing delayed appeals. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by an order dated 03.05.2023, which is impugned in this writ petition. The respondents are the Union of India and various authorities of the State of Bihar.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's appeal, which was rejected for being beyond the statutory period of limitation, could be restored to the files of the Appellate Authority, subject to the petitioner satisfying the conditions stipulated in Notification No. 53 of 2023- Central Tax. The Court referred to the special procedure outlined in paragraphs 2 to 6 of the notification, particularly the requirement under paragraph 3 to pay the admitted tax, interest, fine, fee, and penalty, along with 12.5% of the remaining disputed tax (with specific debiting from the Electronic Cash Ledger). The Court set aside the impugned order dated 03.05.2023 on the condition that the petitioner satisfies these conditions before January 31, 2024. If the conditions are not met, the impugned order would stand restored. The ratio is that a statutory notification providing a special procedure for condoning delays in filing appeals must be followed, and the Appellate Authority or High Court can grant relief based on compliance with such conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's appeal, rejected for being beyond the statutory period of limitation, can be restored in light of Notification No. 53 of 2023- Central Tax dated 02.11.2023? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that Notification No. 53 of 2023- Central Tax provides a special procedure for filing delayed appeals against orders passed under Sections 73 and 74 of the BGST Act, extending the time for filing such appeals up to January 31, 2024. They contended that their appeal should be considered under this notification, subject to fulfilling the conditions therein. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the revenue regarding the maintainability of the appeal under the notification. However, the initial rejection by the Appellate Authority implies a stance that the appeal was not maintainable due to the delay.