M/s Pramod Kumar Mehta, (a Sole Proprietor ship Firm) Vs The Union of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.551 of 2024

======================================================

M/s Pramod Kumar Mehta, (A Sole Proprietor ship Firm) having it registered office-Baina Mahadeopur, Pranpur) Katihar, Bihar through its Sole Proprietor Mr. Pramod Kumar Mehta, aged about 45 years, S/o Mahendra Narayan Mehta, Resident of Baina Mahadeopur, Pranpur, Katihar, Bihar

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, having its office at Room No. 46, North Block, P.O. and P.S. North Block, New Delhi - 110001.

¶7

The Chief Commissioner, CGST and CX, Office at- C.R Building, 1st Floor, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna, Bihar.

¶8

The State of Bihar through Commissioner BGST, New Secretariat, Patna.

¶9

Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Katihar Circle, District- Katihar, Bihar.

¶10

Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Katihar Circle, District - Katihar, Bihar.

¶11

Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Katihar Circle, Katihar.

¶12

Additional Commissioner (Appeal), Purnea Division, Purnea.

¶13

... ... Respondent/s

¶14

======================================================

¶15

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anurag Saurav, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N. Singh, ASG Mr. Anshuman Singh, Sr. SC, CGST & CX Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP-7

¶16

======================================================

¶17

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶18

Date : 30-01-2024

¶19

The petitioner is before this Court since he filed a delayed appeal which is said to have been rejected by Annexure-P/6 for reason of the appeal having not been filed within the period of limitation. Section 107 of the BGST Act provides for three months time to file an appeal and a further

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.551 of 2024 dt.30-01-2024 2/5

¶21

time of one month in which an appeal could be filed with satisfactory explanation, for the delay occasioned.

¶22

The appeal filed in the above case, rejected by Annexure-P/6 was beyond even the one month period provided under Section 107 of the BGST Act. This Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that when there is a specific period provided in the statute, within which period a delayed appeal could be filed; then neither the Appellate Authority nor this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could condone the delay beyond the period provided.

¶23

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has by Notification No. 53 of 2023- Central Tax, dated 02.11.2023 (S.O. 4767(E)) extended the time for filing appeal against an order passed by the Proper Officer on or before 31.03.2023 under Sections 73 and 74 of the BGST Act. This in fact extends the period for filing a delayed appeal beyond the one month period as provided under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act, on following the special procedure prescribed under the said Notification.

¶24

The special procedure prescribed under the Notification is seen from paragraph no. 2 to 6 which are extracted hereunder:-

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.551 of 2024 dt.30-01-2024 3/5

¶26

The said person shall file an appeal against the said order in FORM GST APL-01 in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 107 of the said Act, on or before 31st day of January 2024:

¶27

Provided that an appeal against the said order filed in accordance with the provisions of section 107 of the said Act, and pending before the Appellate Authority before the issuance of this notification, shall be deemed to have been filed in accordance with this notification, if it fulfills the condition specified at para 3 below.

¶28

No appeal shall be filed under this notification, unless the appellant has paid-

¶29

(a) in full, such part of the amount of tax, interest, fine, fee and penalty arising from the impugned order, as is admitted by him; and

¶30

(b) a sum equal to twelve and a half per cent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute arising from the said order, subject to a maximum of twenty-five crore rupees, in relation to which the appeal has been filed, out of which at least twenty percent should have been paid by debiting from the Electronic Cash Ledger.

¶31

No refund shall be granted on account of this notification till the disposal of the appeal, in respect of any amount paid by the appellant, either on their own or on the directions of any authority (or) court, in excess of the amount specified in para 3 of this notification before the issuance of this notification, for filing an appeal under sub- section (1) of Section 107 of the said Act.

¶32

No appeal under this notification shall be admissible in respect of a demand not involving tax.

¶33

The provisions of Chapter XIII of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (12 of 2017), shall mutatis mutandis , apply to an appeal filed under this notification.

¶34

Patna High Court CWJC No.551 of 2024 dt.30-01-2024 4/5

¶35

Hence an appeal against an order under Section 73 or 74 has to be filed on or before 31.01.2024, and any appeal filed which is pending before the authority could also be considered as properly filed, even if there is delay in such filing.

¶36

However, the maintainability of the appeal is further regulated by paragraph no. 3 which require that the admitted tax, interest, fine, fee and penalty arising from the impugned order is paid up along with a sum equal to 12.5% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute arising from the said order subject to a maximum of twenty-five crore rupees; out of which 12.5%, 20% should have been paid by debiting from the Electronic Cash Ledger. The further conditions in paragraph no. 4 to 6 also shall be applicable.

¶37

In the present case, the appeal was filed and was dismissed by the first Appellate Authority. In such circumstances, it is only proper that the appeal be restored to the files of the Authority subject to the conditions under paragraph no. 3 being satisfied.

¶38

Hence the petitioner would be entitled to satisfy paragraph no. 3 of the aforesaid Notification by paying up the deficient amounts as would be required to maintain the appeal under the notification.

¶39

Patna High Court CWJC No.551 of 2024 dt.30-01-2024 5/5

¶40

We specifically say the deficient amount, since on filing the appeal 10% of the amount of tax in dispute arising from the order impugned would/ought to have been remitted.

¶41

We set aside the impugned order dated 18.05.2023 at Annexure-P/6 on condition of the assessee satisfying the aforesaid conditions before the time stipulated in Notification; i.e. 31.01.2024, in which event, the appeal would be taken up and considered on merits. And if the conditions are not satisfied, then necessarily the impugned order would stand restored.

¶42

We allow the writ petition on the above terms.

¶43

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

¶44

(Rajiv Roy, J)

¶45

aditya/-

¶46

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date	30.01.2024.
Transmission Date

M/s Pramod Kumar Mehta, (a Sole Proprietor ship Firm) v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Pramod Kumar Mehta, (a Sole Proprietor ship Firm) v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s A.N. Enterprises Vs Union of India

Tanweer Alam @ Tanwir Alam Vs The State of Bihar

M/s The Works Company Vs The State of Bihar

Shil Asheesh Vs The Honble High Court of Judicature at Patna

Sanjeev Ranjan Vs The State of Bihar

In re-handling of Dead Bodies based on the news report published on the web portal dated08.10.2023 Vs Union of India