The Patna High Court has clarified how taxpayers can benefit from the Central Government’s special amnesty window for filing delayed GST appeals. In a case where the appellant’s statutory appeal had been rejected for being five days late, the Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to set aside the rejection and directed the first appellate authority to entertain the appeal if the appellant meets the conditions of Notification No. 53/2023–Central Tax dated 2 November 2023. The judgment was delivered on 7 December 2023 by a Division Bench comprising the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy.

In simple terms, the case arose because the statutory GST appeal filed by the aggrieved person had been dismissed purely on limitation—specifically, a delay of five days beyond the one-month condonable period under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax (BGST) Act. The High Court acknowledged the strict scheme of limitation under Section 107: three months to file an appeal as of right, and at best one additional month that can be condoned—nothing beyond that. Courts under Article 226 ordinarily cannot extend this rigid outer limit when the statute expressly caps the delay condonable by the appellate authority.

However, the legal landscape changed when the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) issued Notification No. 53/2023–Central Tax on 2 November 2023. This notification created a special procedure for a class of persons—those unable to file appeals within time against orders passed under Sections 73 or 74, or whose appeals were rejected solely as time-barred. It permitted such persons to file/regularize appeals up to 31 January 2024, subject to specified pre-deposits, including 12.5% of the disputed tax (with at least 20% of that amount paid from the Electronic Cash Ledger) and other conditions.

A practical difficulty arose: the underlying adjudication order in this case was dated 27 April 2023. The notification, by its text, covered only orders “on or before 31 March 2023.” Thus, on a literal reading, the appellant would not fall within the specified cut-off.

The Patna High Court closely examined this anomaly. The Bench noted that the notification was itself issued on 2 November 2023. If the Government intended to extend a beneficial window, tying it to a cut-off of 31 March 2023—seven months earlier—resulted in similarly placed appellants being excluded purely by a somewhat arbitrary date. The Court found “no rationale” for fixing 31 March 2023 as the cut-off, and reasoned that at the very least, orders passed within three months prior to 2 November 2023 (i.e., those still within or just outside the normal appeal window when the notification came) ought to receive the same beneficial treatment.

On that reasoning, the Court extended the benefit of the notification to the appellant, notwithstanding the 31 March 2023 textual cut-off. The operative directions were straightforward: if the appellant fulfills the notification’s conditions (including the required pre-deposits), the earlier appellate rejection will be set aside and the first appellate authority shall consider the appeal on merits. If the appellant fails to satisfy those conditions, the earlier order rejecting the appeal will stand restored. In effect, the Court used its constitutional jurisdiction to ensure the special amnesty achieves its remedial objective rather than defeats it through a rigid cut-off date.

Why does this matter? Many taxpayers saw their GST appeals dismissed solely on limitation—often by a few days—despite having arguable merits. The notification was designed to unclog such cases and provide a structured route back into the appellate process, provided the taxpayer makes meaningful upfront payments. The Patna High Court’s approach harmonizes the notification’s purpose with fairness: if the Government intended to provide a window to cure time-barred appeals, then taxpayers adversely affected by a recent adjudication order (such as one in April 2023) should not be excluded merely due to an arbitrary date line. This aligns with the broader administrative law principle that beneficial schemes must be interpreted to further their remedial purpose.

The Court also respected the statutory architecture: it explicitly recognized that Section 107(4) sets an outer boundary on condonation for ordinary cases. It did not dilute the statute’s time limits generally; instead, it permitted reliance on the special mechanism created by the Central Government under Section 148 of the CGST Act—i.e., a special procedure power—subject to strict compliance with the notification’s financial and procedural conditions. Thus, the judgment balances two goals: certainty in limitation law and real-world relief through a centrally crafted window.

Finally, the Bench allowed the writ petition with the above directions—meaning the taxpayer gets a second chance, not a guaranteed win on merits. The merits must still be tested by the appellate authority after the appellant meets the notification’s thresholds.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This ruling is important for both taxpayers and the tax administration in Bihar:

• For taxpayers: It provides a path to revive GST appeals dismissed purely on limitation, even when the adjudication order fell shortly after the Government’s hard cut-off date of 31 March 2023. If the conditions under Notification 53/2023 are met, genuine disputes can be heard on merits rather than being shut out by a technical delay. This aids fairness and reduces the risk of finality attaching to potentially erroneous assessments.
• For the Government: The decision supports the intended clean-up of time-barred appeals without undermining discipline. The financial safeguards—such as payment of the admitted dues and a 12.5% pre-deposit of the balance through the electronic cash ledger—ensure only serious appellants return to the appellate forum. This filters out frivolous litigation, while improving taxpayer trust in the system.
• For courts and appellate authorities: It signals that beneficial notifications should be read purposively. If a cut-off date inadvertently creates irrational classifications among similarly placed litigants, constitutional courts may intervene to ensure the remedial purpose is achieved without rewriting the statute—by directing consideration subject to compliance with the notification.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning

• Whether a statutory GST appeal dismissed as time-barred (delay of five days beyond Section 107(4)) can be resurrected through the special amnesty window under Notification No. 53/2023–Central Tax.
  Decision: Yes, if the appellant strictly complies with the notification’s conditions. The Court set aside the rejection order and directed fresh consideration by the first appellate authority upon such compliance.
• Scope of Section 107(4) BGST on condonation of delay.
  Reasoning: Section 107(4) provides three months plus a maximum one month of condonation; beyond that, neither the appellate authority nor the High Court can extend time under Article 226 in the ordinary course. The Court reaffirmed this strict boundary.
• Validity and application of Notification 53/2023 as a special procedure under Section 148 CGST.
  Reasoning: The notification is a valid special route for a defined class of persons to file/regularize appeals subject to pre-deposit and other conditions. The Court read it purposively to include cases like the present one, despite the rigid date of 31 March 2023, because there was “no rationale” for that cut-off given the 2 November 2023 issuance date.
• Operational directions to the appellate authority.
  Decision: If the appellant meets the notification’s conditions, the earlier appellate rejection stands set aside and the appeal must be heard on merits; otherwise, the impugned order will continue to operate.
• Financial thresholds under the notification.
  Reasoning: The appellant must pay admitted dues in full and deposit 12.5% of the disputed tax (with at least 20% of that amount from the Electronic Cash Ledger) as a condition to avail the special window. This ensures only bona fide challenges return to the appellate docket.

Case Title
M/s Pramod Kumar Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.

Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17214 of 2023.

Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble the Chief Justice; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy.

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
For the petitioner: Mr. Anurag Saurav, Advocate; Mr. Abhinav Alok, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP-7; Ms. Ronna, AC to GP-7; Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to GP-7; Ms. Manisha Singh, AC to GP-7; Ms. Supragya, AC to GP-7.
For the Union of India: Dr. K. V. Singh, ASG; Mr. Anshuman Singh, Sr. SG CGST.

Link to Judgment
MTUjMTcyMTQjMjAyMyMxI04=-v–am1–3Uqi9BzoA=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.