Brand Protection Services Private Limited Vs State of Bihar (Patna High Court)
Patna High Court ruled in favor of Brand Protection Services Private Limited, setting aside the appellate order that had dismissed the company’s appeal against a tax demand. The petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, challenging a demand order dated 27.12.2023, which sought a tax payment of ₹21,21,878, interest of ₹77,97,004, and a penalty of ₹8,12,188 for the tax period of July 2017 to March 2018. The appeal was rejected by the appellate authority solely on the grounds of being filed beyond the prescribed three-month period, despite falling within the condonable one-month extension. The court found that the appellate authority misinterpreted the statutory period as 120 days instead of four calendar months, leading to a premature rejection without considering the merits of the case.
The petitioner contended that the delay in filing was due to the ill health of its director and that the appeal was still within the permissible extension period under Section 107(4) of the Act. The court noted that the rejection violated principles of natural justice and Supreme Court precedents regarding appeal limitations. Consequently, the court directed the appellate authority to reinstate the appeal, examine the reasons for the delay, and decide the case on its merits after allowing a hearing. This ruling ensures that procedural technicalities do not override substantive justice in tax disputes.
