Patna High Court Allows Appeal Beyond Stipulated Time based on CBIC Notification

The judgment, arising from a petition challenging the rejection of an appeal due to a five-day delay, underscores the significance of a recent notification by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.

According to Notification No. 53 of 2023-Central Tax, dated 02.11.2023 (S.O. 4767(E)), the time for filing appeals against orders passed by the Proper Officer on or before 31.03.2023 has been extended.

The petitioner had contested an appeal rejection based on a delay of five days, contrary to the stipulated period of three months for filing appeals under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act.

The Court acknowledged the statutory provisions but noted the specific provisions outlined in the notification. Section 107(4) establishes a three-month period for filing an appeal, with an additional one-month allowance for delayed appeals.

However, the Court emphasized that the BGST Act does not grant the Appellate Authority or a Constitutional Court the power to extend the limitation period.

The challenge in applying the notification to the petitioner's case arose from the fact that the Proper Officer had issued the order on 27.04.2023.

The notification permits appeals for orders issued on or before 31.03.2023, particularly for cases not instituted within the stipulated time or for delayed appeals rejected beyond the specified period in Section 107(4).

The Court questioned the rationale behind the fixed cutoff date of 31.03.2023, especially considering the notification's own issuance on 02.11.2023. It suggested that orders passed at least three months before the notification date should be considered for such beneficial treatment.

Consequently, the Court held, “In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petitioner also can be allowed to comply with the conditions in Notification No. 53 of 2023 upon which the order passed in appeal would stand set aside and a fresh consideration will be made by the first Appellate Authority.”

“If the petitioner fails to fulfill the criteria as stated in the notification, then the impugned order will operate,” the Court added while allowing the writ petition.

Counsel/s For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Gyan Shankar, Adv Mr.Abhinav Alok, Adv

Counsel/s For the Respondent/s : Mr.Raghwanand (GA11) Mr.Pratik Kumar, AC to GA 11

Case Title: M/s Prince Sanitation Gandhi Path vs. The State of Bihar and Ors

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 155

Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17202 of 2023