Jai Bhagwati Mines vs. State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Jai Bhagwati Mines, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its delayed appeal by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Gaya. The appeal was rejected for being filed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 107 of the BGST Act, which allows for an appeal within three months and a further one month with a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The petitioner's appeal was filed even beyond this extended period. The impugned order rejecting the appeal is dated 15.12.2022. The petitioner is seeking relief from the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Held

The Court held that while the Appellate Authority and the High Court cannot condone delays beyond the period prescribed by Section 107 of the BGST Act, 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. This notification allows for appeals to be filed on or before January 31, 2024. The Court found it appropriate to restore the petitioner's appeal to the file of the Appellate Authority, subject to the petitioner satisfying 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 (subject 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 dated 15.12.2022, with the direction that if the conditions are satisfied by January 31, 2024, the appeal will be considered on merits; otherwise, the impugned order will stand restored. The issue of whether an appeal involving no tax demand is admissible was noted as being regulated by paragraph 5 of the notification.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can condone a delay in filing an appeal beyond the period prescribed by Section 107 of the BGST Act, even when the statute provides for a specific extended period for delayed appeals? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner implicitly argues that the High Court should provide relief, likely by allowing the appeal to be heard on merits, given the circumstances and the subsequent notification providing a special procedure for filing delayed appeals. The petitioner relies on the subsequent Notification No. 53 of 2023- Central Tax, dated 02.11.2023, which extends the time for filing appeals against orders passed under Sections 73 and 74 of the BGST Act. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the State of Bihar, likely argued that the appeal was correctly rejected by the Appellate Authority as it was filed beyond the statutory period of limitation, and neither the Appellate Authority nor the High Court can condone delays beyond what is statutorily permitted. The revenue would rely on the provisions of Section 107 of the BGST Act.