Jai Bhagwati Mines vs. State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Jai Bhagwati Mines, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of their delayed appeal by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Gaya. The appeal was rejected for being filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the BGST Act, which allows three months for filing an appeal with a further one-month condonation period for delay upon satisfactory explanation. The petitioner's appeal was filed beyond even this extended one-month period. The Court noted that both the High Court and the Supreme Court have held that delays beyond statutory limits cannot be condoned. However, a recent notification, No. 53 of 2023-Central Tax dated 02.11.2023, extended the time for filing appeals against orders passed under Sections 73 and 74 of the BGST Act.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's delayed appeal, which was initially rejected by the Appellate Authority, could be restored to the file of the authority, subject to the petitioner satisfying the conditions stipulated in paragraph 3 of Notification No. 53 of 2023-Central Tax. These conditions require the appellant to pay the admitted portion of tax, interest, fine, fee, and penalty, along with 12.5% of the remaining disputed tax amount (capped at 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 the conditions are met, the appeal will be considered on merits; otherwise, the rejection order will stand. The ratio is that statutory notifications providing for extended timelines and specific compliance procedures for filing appeals, even delayed ones, must be given effect to, provided the conditions therein are met.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's delayed appeal, rejected by the Appellate Authority, can be restored in light of Notification No. 53 of 2023-Central Tax, dated 02.11.2023? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the aforementioned notification provides a special procedure for filing delayed appeals against orders under Sections 73 and 74 of the BGST Act, and their appeal should be considered under this new provision. They relied on the extension of time granted by the notification. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondent revenue authorities. However, the initial rejection of the appeal by the Appellate Authority implies their stance that the appeal was time-barred and not maintainable.