Sabita Singh vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Sabita Singh, challenged an order passed under the Bihar Goods and Services Taxes Act, 2017 (BGST Act) which dismissed her appeal on grounds of delay. Section 107 of the BGST Act allows three months for filing an appeal, with an additional one month for filing with a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The petitioner's appeal was filed beyond even this extended period. The Court noted a recent notification (Notification No. 53 of 2023-Central Tax dated 02.11.2023) issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, which extended the time for filing appeals against orders passed under Sections 73 and 74 of the BGST Act on or before March 31, 2023, to January 31, 2024, subject to specific conditions.

Held

The Court held that the appeal, which was dismissed for being beyond the statutory period under Section 107 of the BGST Act, should be restored to the file of the Appellate Authority, subject to the petitioner satisfying the conditions stipulated in Notification No. 53 of 2023-Central Tax. The reasoning is that the notification provides a special procedure to extend the period for filing appeals against orders passed under Sections 73 and 74 of the BGST Act, even for delayed appeals, provided certain conditions are met. These conditions include paying the admitted tax, interest, fine, fee, and penalty, and 12.5% of the remaining disputed tax (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 directed the petitioner to satisfy these conditions before January 31, 2024. If satisfied, the appeal would be considered on merits; otherwise, it would stand rejected. The Court also clarified that even in cases where writ petitions against similar dismissals were previously rejected, assessees can still invoke the remedy under the notification by satisfying its conditions. The Commissioner, State Taxes, Bihar, was directed to issue instructions to officers regarding the restoration of appeals under these terms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's appeal, dismissed for being beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 107 of the BGST Act, can be restored in light of Notification No. 53 of 2023-Central Tax? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner implicitly argues for restoration by filing the writ petition, seeking relief from the dismissal order. The subsequent arguments would be based on the applicability of the new notification. Respondent's Contention: The respondents would likely argue that the appeal was correctly dismissed as it was filed beyond the time stipulated in Section 107 of the BGST Act, and that the Court or Appellate Authority cannot condone delay beyond the statutory limits. They would also likely emphasize the conditions stipulated in the new notification for restoration.