M/S Micro Zone vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Micro Zone, filed a writ petition challenging an order of the Additional Commissioner (Appeal) of State Tax, Purnea Division, which dismissed their appeal under the Bihar Goods and Services Taxes Act, 2017 (BGST Act) solely on the grounds of delay. The appeal was filed beyond the one-month extended period permitted under Section 107 of the BGST Act. Subsequently, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs issued Notification No. 53 of 2023-Central Tax, dated 02.11.2023, extending the time for filing appeals against orders passed under Sections 73 and 74 of the BGST Act on or before 31.03.2023, up to 31.01.2024, subject to certain conditions.

Held

The Court held that the appeal, which was dismissed for delay beyond the period prescribed 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 Court reasoned that the notification provides a special procedure and an extended period for filing appeals against orders under Sections 73 and 74 of the BGST Act. The ratio decidendi is that a beneficial notification extending the time for filing appeals, even after an appeal has been dismissed for delay, should be given effect, provided the conditions laid down in the notification are met. The Court directed the petitioner to satisfy the conditions under paragraph 3 of the notification by paying the admitted tax, interest, fine, fee, and penalty, along with 12.5% of the remaining disputed tax, by 31.01.2024. If these conditions are met, the appeal will be considered on merits; otherwise, it will stand rejected. The Court also clarified that assessees whose writ petitions were rejected solely on grounds of delay can also invoke this remedy.

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 argued that the subsequent notification provides a special procedure and extended timeline for filing appeals, which should be applied to their case, allowing for the restoration of their appeal. They relied on the principle that subsequent beneficial legislation or notifications should be given effect. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not explicitly record any arguments against the petitioner's plea. However, the initial dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority was based on the statutory time limits under Section 107 of the BGST Act.