Sabita Singh vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Sabita Singh, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of her delayed appeal by the Joint Commissioner State Tax, Darbhanga (Annexure-4). 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 and an additional one month with a satisfactory explanation for delay. The petitioner's appeal was filed even beyond this extended period. The Court noted that a Notification No. 53 of 2023-Central Tax, dated 02.11.2023, had extended the time for filing appeals against orders passed under Sections 73 and 74 of the BGST Act on or before 31.03.2023, allowing filing up to 31.01.2024, subject to certain conditions.

Held

The Court held that while generally, delays beyond the statutory period cannot be condoned, 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 on or before 31.03.2023, with a new deadline of 31.01.2024. The Court found that the petitioner's appeal, though initially rejected, could be restored to the file of the Appellate Authority, provided the petitioner satisfied the conditions stipulated 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 (up to a maximum 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, conditional upon the petitioner fulfilling these requirements by 31.01.2024. If conditions are not met, the rejection order would stand.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, can condone a delay in filing an appeal beyond the period specifically provided in Section 107 of the BGST Act, including the additional one month for delayed appeals. 2. Whether the petitioner can avail the benefit of Notification No. 53 of 2023-Central Tax, dated 02.11.2023, to have her delayed appeal considered on merits, despite it being initially rejected for being beyond the statutory limitation period. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner implicitly argued that the subsequent notification provided a window for her to have her appeal considered on merits, overriding the initial rejection due to delay. The petitioner sought restoration of her appeal to the file of the Appellate Authority. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents (Revenue). However, the Court's reasoning implies that the respondents would have relied on the strict interpretation of Section 107 of the BGST Act regarding the limitation period.