The petitioner approached the Patna High Court after the first appellate authority rejected its GST appeal as time-barred under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax (BGST) Act. The Court noted that Section 107 allows three months to file an appeal and one additional month if sufficient cause for delay is explained. However, the petitioner’s appeal was beyond even this extended one-month limit and had therefore been dismissed. Importantly, during the pendency of such disputes, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) issued Notification No. 53/2023–Central Tax dated 02.11.2023, creating a special one-time window for filing or curing delayed appeals against orders passed on or before 31.03.2023 under Sections 73 and 74. Relying on this notified special procedure, the Patna High Court held that the petitioner’s dismissed appeal should be restored, subject to strict compliance with the financial pre-conditions laid down in the Notification and completion of those steps within the notified timeline.
Under the BGST framework, the general rule on limitation is clear: an appeal must be filed within three months from the impugned order, with the possibility of condoning a further one month upon sufficient cause. Courts, including the High Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, cannot condone delay beyond the statutorily permitted period. The appellate authority had therefore acted within law when it refused to entertain the delayed appeal. The High Court recorded this legal position and acknowledged the constraint on both the appellate authority and the writ court regarding condonation beyond the maximum one-month extension under Section 107(4).
What changed the legal landscape was CBIC’s Notification No. 53/2023–Central Tax. This special procedure permitted an appeal to be treated as properly filed if (i) the original order under Sections 73 or 74 was passed on or before 31.03.2023, and (ii) the appellant filed the appeal on or before 31.01.2024 in Form GST APL-01, or, where an appeal was already pending, it would be deemed to be in accordance with the notification provided further conditions were met. Those conditions included payment of the admitted portion of tax, interest, fine, fee, and penalty, and an additional 12.5% of the remaining disputed tax—capped at ₹25 crores—with at least 20% of that 12.5% being paid through the Electronic Cash Ledger. The Notification also barred appeals that did not involve “tax” demand, and it made Chapter XIII of the CGST Rules, 2017 applicable mutatis mutandis. Finally, no refund could be claimed solely because of this Notification until the appeal was decided.
Applying the Notification to the facts, the Patna High Court observed that although the petitioner’s appeal had been dismissed by the first appellate authority as time-barred, the special window now allowed such appeals (or dismissed ones, if revived) to be treated as properly filed, provided the appellant completed the mandated pre-deposits and complied with the procedure before 31.01.2024. On this basis, the Court conditionally set aside the impugned rejection order dated 19.09.2023 and restored the appeal to the appellate authority’s file. The restoration was expressly conditional: the petitioner had to satisfy the Notification’s paragraph 3 (financial pre-deposit conditions) and do so within the stipulated time. If the conditions were not fulfilled by 31.01.2024, the earlier rejection order would automatically stand restored.
The Court also clarified that while Section 107 ordinarily requires a 10% pre-deposit at the time of filing the appeal, the Notification required a higher, one-time pre-deposit of 12.5% of the remaining disputed tax (in addition to admitted amounts) for the appeal to be maintainable under the special window. The Court therefore used the term “deficient amount” to indicate the differential that the appellant would now have to deposit to align an already-filed appeal with the Notification’s requirements.
In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, not by directing the appellate authority to ignore statutory limitation, but by giving effect to the CBIC’s remedial policy measure that temporarily extended appeal facilitation for legacy orders under Sections 73 and 74. The relief is thus narrow, procedural, and strictly time-bound: it revives the remedy of appeal and ensures a decision on merits, but only if the appellant completes the enhanced pre-deposit and meets the deadline of 31.01.2024.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment (For general public or government)
This judgment is significant for taxpayers who missed the regular limitation period for GST appeals against orders passed on or before 31.03.2023 under Sections 73 (non-fraud demand) and 74 (fraud/suppression-related demand). It reaffirms two parallel principles. First, limitation under Section 107 is strict—neither appellate authorities nor High Courts can extend time beyond what the statute permits. Second, where the Central Government has issued a special, time-bound procedure by notification, courts will give full effect to that policy choice, provided taxpayers satisfy the notification’s conditions within the specified window. Here, the Court’s approach prevented a dismissal on pure limitation grounds from permanently foreclosing adjudication on merits, but only because the central Notification deliberately created that limited opportunity.
For taxpayers, the message is practical: if your appeal was dismissed as time-barred or if you missed the regular deadline for an order under Sections 73/74, the special window could revive your appellate remedy—but only by meeting all financial pre-deposit conditions and strictly adhering to the deadline. The Court’s conditional restoration underscores that the Notification is not a blanket amnesty; it is a structured compliance route with higher pre-deposit (12.5% of disputed tax, in addition to admitted dues) and a firm cut-off date.
For the administration, the judgment supports uniform application of CBIC’s special procedure and reduces litigation on limitation when a clear policy window exists. It ensures that appeals will proceed on merits where taxpayers demonstrate bona fide compliance with the enhanced pre-deposit and timing requirements, thereby improving the quality of dispute resolution without undermining statutory timelines generally. In essence, the Court harmonizes statutory limitation discipline with an exceptional, time-bound remedial measure, enhancing certainty for both taxpayers and revenue authorities.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning
- Whether a GST appeal dismissed as time-barred under Section 107 can be revived in writ jurisdiction.
Decision: Yes, but only because of CBIC’s special procedure in Notification No. 53/2023–Central Tax, which the Court gave effect to by conditionally restoring the appeal subject to compliance with the Notification (including enhanced pre-deposit) within the notified time. The Court reiterated that ordinarily neither the appellate authority nor the High Court can condone delays beyond the one-month extension in Section 107(4). - What are the preconditions to maintain an appeal under the special window?
Decision: The appellant must (a) pay all admitted tax, interest, fine, fee, and penalty; and (b) deposit 12.5% of the remaining disputed tax (capped at ₹25 crores), with at least 20% of that 12.5% paid via the Electronic Cash Ledger. Appeals involving no “tax” demand are not admissible. Pending appeals filed earlier can also be treated as properly filed if these conditions are met by the deadline. CGST Rules, Chapter XIII, apply mutatis mutandis, and no refund is available merely due to the notification until disposal of the appeal. - What relief was ultimately granted?
Decision: The Court set aside the appellate rejection order dated 19.09.2023 and restored the appeal to the appellate authority’s file, on the condition that the appellant complete the required deposits and formalities by 31.01.2024. Failing compliance by that date, the rejection order would automatically stand revived.
- Case Title
M/s Micro Zone v. Union of India & Ors. - Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17716 of 2023 - Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble the Chief Justice; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy - Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
For the petitioner: Mr. Anurag Saurav, Advocate
For the Union of India: Dr. K.N. Singh, ASG; Mr. Anshuman Singh, Sr. SG, CGST & CX
For the respondents (State tax authorities): Learned Additional Solicitor General - Link to Judgment
MTUjMTc3MTYjMjAyMyMxI04=-gqRcxFv2VhA=
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.
