M/S Rabindra Kumar Singh vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Rabindra Kumar Singh, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Additional Commissioner, State Taxes (Appeal), Purnia Division, which dismissed their appeal on the grounds of delay. The appeal was filed under the Bihar Goods and Services Taxes Act, 2017 (BGST Act). Section 107 of the BGST Act prescribes a time limit of three months for filing an appeal, with a further one-month condonable period for delay, provided there is a satisfactory explanation. The petitioner's appeal was rejected as it was filed beyond even this extended one-month period. The Court noted a subsequent Central Government 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.

Held

The Court held that while the appeal was initially filed beyond the period prescribed under Section 107 of the BGST Act, and ordinarily such delay could not be condoned beyond the statutory limits, the subsequent Notification No. 53 of 2023-Central Tax provided a special procedure for filing appeals. This notification extends the time for filing appeals against orders under Sections 73 and 74 of the BGST Act passed on or before 31.03.2023, with a deadline of 31st January 2024. The Court found it appropriate to restore the appeal to the file of the Appellate Authority, subject to the petitioner 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 (subject to a cap of twenty-five crore rupees), with 20% of this 12.5% paid from the Electronic Cash Ledger. The impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to comply with these conditions by 31.01.2024 for the appeal to be considered on merits. The Court also clarified that this benefit extends to other cases where writ petitions were rejected solely on grounds of delay in filing appeals under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act, provided the notification's conditions are met.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner, which was beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 107 of the BGST Act, could be condoned by the Appellate Authority or the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, considering the pronouncements of the High Court and the Supreme Court. 2. Whether the benefit of 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, could be availed by the petitioner, and if so, subject to what conditions. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner implicitly argued for the applicability of the subsequent notification to regularize their delayed appeal, as they sought relief from the High Court. Revenue's Argument: The revenue, represented by the State of Bihar, did not explicitly record any arguments against the applicability of the notification or the petitioner's claim for relief based on it. The Court's decision was primarily based on interpreting the scope and effect of the notification.