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 for a three-month period 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 a subsequent notification, Notification No. 53 of 2023-Central Tax, dated 02.11.2023, which 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 the initial appeal was rejected for being beyond the statutory limitation period under Section 107 of the BGST Act, the subsequent Notification No. 53 of 2023-Central Tax provided a special procedure and an extended timeline for filing appeals against orders passed under Sections 73 and 74 of the BGST Act. The Court found that the petitioner could avail this benefit by satisfying the conditions stipulated 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 amount (with specific debiting from the Electronic Cash Ledger), subject to a maximum of twenty-five crore rupees. The Court set aside the impugned order of rejection (Annexure-4) on the condition that the petitioner satisfies these conditions before the stipulated deadline of 31.01.2024. If the conditions are met, the appeal will be considered on merits; otherwise, the rejection order will stand. The Court specifically noted that the petitioner would be entitled to satisfy the 'deficient amounts' required by paragraph 3 of the notification.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, can condone delay in filing an appeal beyond the period prescribed in Section 107 of the BGST Act, including the additional one month for delayed appeals. 2. Whether Notification No. 53 of 2023-Central Tax, dated 02.11.2023, provides a special procedure and extended timeline for filing appeals against orders passed under Sections 73 and 74 of the BGST Act, and if so, what are the conditions for availing this benefit. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner implicitly argued for relief by approaching the High Court and seeking restoration of her appeal, relying on the subsequent notification that provided an extended period and a special procedure for filing delayed appeals. The petitioner sought to benefit from the provisions of Notification No. 53 of 2023. Respondent's Contention: The respondents, through the Additional Solicitor General, did not explicitly record arguments against the applicability of the notification or the petitioner's eligibility, but the initial rejection of the appeal by the appellate authority was based on the limitation period.