M/S Yash Enterprises vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

M/s Yash Enterprises (the petitioner) 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 period of three months for filing an appeal, with an additional one month for delayed appeals if a satisfactory explanation is provided. The petitioner's appeal was rejected as it exceeded even this extended period. 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 on or before 31.03.2023 under Sections 73 and 74 of the BGST Act.

Held

The Court held that while generally, delays beyond statutory periods cannot be condoned by appellate authorities or the High Court under Article 226, Notification No. 53 of 2023-Central Tax provides a special procedure for filing appeals against orders passed on or before 31.03.2023 under Sections 73 and 74 of the BGST Act. This notification extends the appeal filing deadline to 31.01.2024. Crucially, it allows appeals pending before the Appellate Authority before the notification's issuance to be deemed properly filed if they meet specified conditions. These conditions include paying the admitted portion of tax, interest, fine, fee, and penalty, and 12.5% of the remaining disputed tax (subject to a cap of ₹25 crore), with at least 20% of this 12.5% paid from the Electronic Cash Ledger. The Court reasoned that the petitioner should be allowed to satisfy these conditions to have their appeal considered on merits. The impugned order rejecting the appeal was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to comply with the conditions by 31.01.2024. The Court also clarified that even writ petitions previously rejected solely on grounds of delay could be revisited by invoking this notification, provided the conditions are met. The ratio is that a specific notification providing a special remedy for delayed appeals, even after prior rejection, must be given effect to, subject to strict compliance with its stipulated conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority or this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can condone a delay in filing an appeal beyond the period prescribed in Section 107 of the BGST Act? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner implicitly argues that the subsequent Notification No. 53 of 2023-Central Tax provides a remedy for delayed appeals, even those previously rejected on grounds of delay, by allowing them to be filed or considered under specific conditions. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, would likely rely on the existing provisions of Section 107 of the BGST Act and established legal precedents that limit the condonation of delay beyond statutory periods. However, the judgment does not explicitly record any specific arguments from the revenue regarding the applicability of the new notification.