Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Sarika Constructions Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director Anil Kumar Singh, challenged the dismissal of its appeal filed under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act) on the ground of delay. Section 107 permits three months for filing an appeal, extendable by a further one month on sufficient cause, but the petitioner's appeal, rejected vide Annexure-5, was filed beyond even this extended one-month condonable period. While the writ petition was pending, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs issued Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax dated 02.11.2023, extending the time for filing appeals against orders passed under Sections 73 and 74 of the BGST Act on or before 31.03.2023, up to 31.01.2024, subject to specified pre-deposit conditions.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the High Court, under Article 226, could condone delay in filing a GST appeal beyond the period statutorily permitted under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act.
  2. Whether the subsequently issued amnesty Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax could be applied to restore an appeal already dismissed for delay.
  3. What conditions had to be satisfied by the assessee to avail the benefit of the amnesty notification.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The appeal against the assessment order was filed late, but the delay ought to be viewed in light of the subsequently notified amnesty scheme permitting delayed appeals up to 31.01.2024.
  • The petitioner sought restoration of its appeal so that it could be considered on merits, subject to compliance with the special procedure and pre-deposit conditions of the Notification.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Court itself and the Supreme Court have consistently held that where a statute prescribes a specific period, including a condonable extension, for filing a delayed appeal, neither the Appellate Authority nor the High Court under Article 226 can condone delay beyond that period.
  • The Advocate General's office defended the strict limitation regime under Section 107(4) as correctly applied to reject the belated appeal.

Court Order/Findings

  • The Court reaffirmed that ordinarily neither the Appellate Authority nor a writ court can condone delay beyond the period fixed under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act.
  • However, Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax specifically extends the appeal-filing window up to 31.01.2024 for orders passed under Sections 73/74 on or before 31.03.2023, subject to payment of admitted dues in full and 12.5% of the disputed tax (of which at least 20% must be debited from the Electronic Cash Ledger), and this benefit applies even to appeals already dismissed by courts for delay.
  • The impugned order dismissing the appeal was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to satisfy the deficient payment conditions under the Notification by 31.01.2024, whereupon the appeal would be restored and considered on merits.
  • The Court further clarified, for the benefit of similarly placed assessees whose writ petitions it had earlier dismissed on delay grounds, that they too could avail the Notification's benefit independent of those dismissals.

Important Clarification

Even though courts cannot condone delay in filing a GST appeal beyond the statutory limit under Section 107(4), a subsequently issued CBIC amnesty notification prescribing a special procedure and extended timeline for delayed appeals against Section 73/74 orders can still be availed by the assessee — including where the appeal or writ petition has already been dismissed for delay — provided the specified pre-deposit conditions are met within the notified window.

Sections Involved

  • Section 107, BGST Act, 2017 — prescribes the limitation period of three months plus one condonable month for filing an appeal.
  • Sections 73 and 74, BGST Act, 2017 — govern determination of tax demands, orders under which are appealable.
  • Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax dated 02.11.2023 — special amnesty procedure extending the appeal window for such orders up to 31.01.2024.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision favours the Assessee. The dismissal of the appeal for delay was set aside and the appeal restored for consideration on merits, subject to the assessee complying with the payment conditions prescribed under the amnesty notification.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
  • Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4940 of 2023
  • CNR: Not available
  • Coram: Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Rajiv Roy
  • Decision Date: 9 November 2023
  • Disposal Nature: Allowed

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.