M/S Shree Bhandari Plastic Private Limited vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the facts of the case were squarely covered by a previous judgment of the same Court in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026 (M.K. Traders v. State of Bihar & Ors.). The Court reiterated that the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is a special Act, and Section 162 bars civil court jurisdiction. It noted that Section 107(4) restricts the condonation of delay to 30 days for appeals before the Appellate Authority. While Section 117(2) allows the High Court, in its appellate jurisdiction, to condone delay for sufficient cause, the present case was a writ petition. The Court found that the petitioner had not taken steps after receiving the intimation and that notices uploaded on the portal were sufficient compliance under Section 169. The Court concluded that the petitioner's belated appeal was rightly rejected by the Appellate Authority and that, in light of the M.K. Traders judgment, delay beyond the statutory period could only be condoned for one month, which was not applicable here. Therefore, the prayer in the writ application was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shree Bhandari Plastic Private Limited, a registered taxpayer, challenged an order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Respondent No. 3) under Section 73(9) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, which imposed a demand of tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner also challenged an order dated 24.02.2026 by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) (Respondent No. 2), which rejected their appeal solely on grounds of delay. The petitioner contended that they were unaware of the show cause notice dated 25.01.2024, issued after an intimation in Form GST DRC-01A dated 06.12.2023 regarding excess input tax credit of Rs. 8,71,209.18 for 2018-19, because their senior accountant had left employment in January 2024. They claimed the adjudication order was not physically served and came to their knowledge only on 14.01.2026 via a recovery notice, leading to a belated appeal filed on 20.01.2026.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court has the power under Article 226 of the Constitution to condone the delay in filing an appeal beyond the period prescribed under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's appeal by the Appellate Authority solely on the ground of delay, without considering the merits, was justified? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they were not aware of the show cause notice and the subsequent adjudication order due to the departure of their senior accountant and lack of proper service. They claimed the adjudication order was uploaded on the portal and not effectively communicated. They asserted that the appeal was filed with due diligence after learning of the order and sought condonation of delay. They relied on the principle that substantive justice should prevail over procedural technicalities. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent department argued that the petitioner admitted receipt of the intimation and failed to comply, exhibiting an indolent approach. They contended that the petitioner filed the appeal after a significant delay of 17 months, and the Appellate Authority rightly rejected it under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017. They further argued that the writ application itself was filed with considerable delay and should be rejected on that ground alone. They asserted that notices uploaded on the common portal constitute sufficient compliance under Section 169 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017.