Amrendra Kumar Yadav vs. State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Amrendra Kumar Yadav, failed to file GST returns, leading the Assessing Officer (Respondent No. 3) to cancel his registration on January 8, 2020. The petitioner appealed this decision to the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 2), who dismissed the appeal on July 30, 2021, solely on the grounds of delay. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging both the cancellation order and the appellate order. The amount in dispute is not specified. The procedural history involves the initial cancellation of registration, the subsequent dismissal of the appeal due to delay, and the present writ petition.

Held

The Court held that both the order of the Assessing Officer cancelling the registration and the order of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay were liable to be quashed and set aside. The Court reasoned that the Appellate Authority ought to have been more indulgent in condoning the delay, particularly in view of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Supreme Court's orders extending limitation periods. The Court also opined that the Assessing Officer should have exercised powers under Section 30 of the Act to allow the petitioner to comply with statutory requirements. The petitioner's bona fides were accepted, and an undertaking to file returns and deposit tax and interest within two weeks was taken on record. The Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the petitioner to appear before the Assessing Officer on March 2, 2022, having fully complied with the law by then. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the case on merits after affording adequate opportunity and complying with principles of natural justice, preferably within two months. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the case, and all issues were left open.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of delay, particularly in light of the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic and the provisions of Section 30 of the Bihar Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority should have been more indulgent in condoning the delay, especially considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, during which the Hon'ble Apex Court had extended limitation periods. They argued that the Assessing Officer should have also invoked powers under Section 30 of the Act to allow the petitioner to comply with statutory provisions. The petitioner expressed bona fides and undertook to file returns and deposit tax and interest within two weeks. Revenue's argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents.