The Patna High Court in the case M/s Prince Sanitation Gandhi Path vs. The State of Bihar and Ors observed and has provided relief to individuals facing delayed appeals under Section 73 and Section 74 of the BGST Act. In the present case, the court was hearing the petition moved wherein it challenged the rejection of an appeal due to the delay of five-day, underscores the significance of a recent notification by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. It has been stated that as per the Notification No. 53 of 2023-Central Tax, dated November 02, 2023 (S.O. 4767(E)), the time for filing appeals against orders passed by the Proper Officer on or before March 31, 2023 has been extended. The petitioner in the plea had contested an appeal rejection which is based on the delay of five days, which being contrary to the stipulated period of three months for filing appeals under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act. The court in the case observed and has acknowledged the statutory provisions but the court noted the specific provisions outlined in the notification. Thus, the Section 107(4) establishes a threemonth period for filing an appeal, with an additional one-month allowance for delayed appeals. The court in the case observed and has emphasized that the BGST Act does not grant the Appellate Authority or a Constitutional Court the power in order to extend the limitation period. The court observed that the challenge in applying the notification to the petitioner’s case arose from the fact that the Proper Officer had issued the order on April 27, 2023. Therefore, the notification permits appeals for orders issued on or before March 31, 2023, which being particularly for cases not instituted within the stipulated time or for delayed appeals rejected beyond the specified period in Section 107(4). The court in the case questioned the rationale behind the fixed cutoff date of March 31, 2023, while considering the notification’s own issuance on November 02, 2023. It has also been suggested that the orders passed at least three months before the notification date should be considered for such beneficial treatment. The court in the case observed and has held that this court is 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. Adding to it, the court stated that if the petitioner fails to fulfil the criteria as stated in the notification, then the impugned order will operate.
Accordingly, the court allowed the writ plea. The counsel, Advocates Mr. Gyan Shankar, Adv Mr. Abhinav Alok appeared for the petitioner. The counsel, Advocates Mr. Raghwanand (GA11) Mr. Pratik Kumar, AC to GA 11 represented the respondent.
