M/S Vindyavashini Sales vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Vindyavashini Sales, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals), Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an earlier order dated 26.11.2018, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. The appeal was dismissed solely on the grounds of being time-barred. The earlier order, which was ex parte, pertained to GSTIN No. 10ADIPM3557F1ZU for tax periods 2017-18 and 2018-19. The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained due to COVID-19 restrictions. The revenue, represented by the State of Bihar, had no objection to the matter being remanded.

Held

The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals). The appeal was restored to its original file and number. The Court accepted the petitioner's statement that ten percent of the total amount, a prerequisite for hearing the appeal, had already been deposited. If not deposited, it was to be done before the next date. This deposit was to be without prejudice to the parties' rights and subject to the Appellate Authority's final order, with a provision for refund if found to be in excess. The Court directed the de-freezing/de-attaching of the petitioner's bank account(s) if attached. The petitioner undertook to appear before the Appellate Authority on 28th July, 2022. The Appellate Authority was directed to condone the delay, decide the appeal on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice, afford an opportunity of hearing, and not take coercive steps during the pendency of the appeal. The Appellate Authority was to pass a speaking order within two months of the petitioner's appearance, and all issues were left open, with no opinion expressed on the merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals) was rightly dismissed as time-barred, considering the prevailing COVID-19 restrictions, and if not, whether the delay should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, or analogous provisions applicable to GST appeals? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained due to the restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. They sought setting aside of the appellate order and the original order, and a fresh hearing on merits. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Revenue stated that they had no objection if the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for deciding the appeal afresh. They agreed that the ground of delay should not be taken into account and the appeal should be decided on merits. They also agreed that no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal.