M/S Ganpati Battery Traders vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by its previous judgment in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026, M.K. Traders Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. The Court reiterated that under Section 107 of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017, the Appellate Authority has the power to condone delay only for one month and not beyond that. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and Ors Vrs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, (2020)19 SCC 681, regarding the High Court's power to condone delay. The Court found that the petitioner filed the statutory appeal after a delay of approximately 2 years, 2 months, and 14 days. Consequently, in terms of the aforementioned judgment, the present writ application was dismissed. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ganpati Battery Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 06.06.2026 passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals). This order rejected the petitioner's statutory appeal, filed under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, solely on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal, citing chronic illness of its proprietor from 16.01.2024 to 12.05.2026, which prevented them from attending to the matter. The proprietor only became aware of the impugned order on 10.05.2026. The original order being challenged was an ex-parte order dated 09.11.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax under Section 73(9) of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017, proposing a demand of Rs. 17,92,041.20/- for the period 2017-18.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, has the power to condone the delay in filing a statutory appeal beyond the period prescribed under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act, 2017, when the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal solely on limitation? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that their proprietor suffered from a chronic illness preventing them from filing the appeal within the stipulated time. They sought condonation of this delay by the High Court in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Revenue's Argument: The respondent-department argued that the Appellate Authority rightly rejected the appeal as it was preferred after an inordinate delay of 2 years, 2 months, and 14 days. They relied on the provisions of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017, regarding the time limits for filing appeals.