Patna High Court
M/s Genius Consultants Ltd.versusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue a second appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act, and no opinion is expressed on the merits of the condonation claim.
Summary
M/s Genius Consultants Ltd. filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court seeking to quash an order rejecting its appeal against a tax demand of ₹95,800 under CGST/SGST for FY 2017-18, and to compel the appellate authority to condone the delay in filing the appeal under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act. The petitioner claimed a medical reason for the delay but did not attach the annexure supporting this claim to the writ petition. The State argued that no condonation request was made before the appellate authority and that the statutory limitation period of three months, with a one‑month condonation window, had not been satisfied. The court noted that the petitioner could still file a second appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act and that the State had no objection to this remedy. Consequently, the court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ and seek relief in the appropriate forum, without expressing any view on the merits of the petitioner's contentions. The writ petition was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal without condoning the delay under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act.
- Whether the writ petition seeking mandamus to compel reconsideration of the appeal is maintainable.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a second appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act.
Legislation cited
- Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — s. 107(1), 107(4), 112
Subjects
- CGST
- GST appeal
- condonation of delay
- Section 107
- Section 112
- mandamus
- writ jurisdiction
- tax recovery
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2664 of 2026
======================================================
M/s Genius Consultants Ltd. Branch office at A/208, Capital Tower, Fraser
Road, Patna, Bihar, 800001 though its Authorised Signatory Saurabh Sett,
male, aged about 55 years, son of Ranjit Sett, resident of 8A/1 Ray Street L.
R. Sarani S.O., District- Kolkata, West Bengal - 700020.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Commercial Taxes,
Bihar, Patna.
2. Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Patna West Division, Patna.
3. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Patna West Circle, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Ranjan, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vivek Prasad, G.P.-07
Mr. Prateyush Kumar, AC to GP-07
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
2 17-06-2026 This writ application has been preferred seeking the
following reliefs:
i. For issuing of
writ/order/direction/declaration in the nature of
Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order or
direction in the nature thereof to quash the
impugned Order-in-Appeal No.
AD100724007960G dated 17.10.2025 passed by
the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal)
Patna, West Division Patna (hereinafter referred to
as "the Appellate Authority"), rejecting the appeal
Patna High Court CWJC No.2664 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/5
filed by the petitioner against the Order-in-
Original (OIO) in Form GST DRC- 07, dated
25.11.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner
of State Tax Patna central circle-1, Patna
(hereinafter referred to as "the Adjudicating
Authority"),
ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ,
order or direction quashing and setting aside the
Order-in-Original in Form GST DRC-07, dated
25.11.2023, passed by the Learned Assistant
Commissioner of State Tax, Patna Central Circle-
1, Patna West, Bihar, whereby the Petitioner has
been illegally directed to make payment of a sum of
₹95,800/- (Rupees Ninety-Five Thousand Eight
Hundred only) towards CGST and SGST for the
period FY 2017-18 (July to March).
iii. For issuing a Writ of Mandamus
directing the Appellant Authority to reconsider the
appeal on its merits by Exercising its power to
condone any technical delay in filing the appeal
under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act and by
Examining the substantive grounds of the appeal
and by Considering the petitioner's written
submissions and supporting documents and pass a
fresh order after giving the petitioner a fair
hearing.
iv. For issuance of an appropriate writ,
order or direction restraining the Respondent
authorities from taking any coercive steps,
including recovery proceedings, for realization of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2664 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/5
the disputed amount of ₹95,800/-, during the
pendency and final disposal of the present writ
application.
v. For issuance of any other writ, order
or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case, in the interest of justice.
2. In course of hearing of the writ petition, we called
upon Mr. Alok Ranjan, learned Advocate for the petitioner to
demonstrate from the records as to whether any application
seeking condonation of delay was filed before the Appellate
Authority and if so, the grounds stated therein be placed before
this Court.
3. Mr. Alok Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner
has passed over a copy of the memorandum of appeal in the
given format and claims that with the said appeal, there was one
page attached called Annexure-C in which there is a statement
that due to some medical reasons, the appeal could not be filed.
Learned counsel, however, admits that the said memorandum of
appeal has not been enclosed with the writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that on a bare
perusal of the impugned order passed by the Appellate
Authority, it would appear that before the Appellate Authority,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2664 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
4/5
no reason was shown for purpose of condonation of delay. The
observation of the Appellate Authority present in the impugned
order has not been contested by raising any specific plea in the
writ application. It has neither been contested by way of
pleading.
5. Learned counsel submits that Section 107(1) of the
Central Goods and Services Tax/Bihar Goods and Services Tax
Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CGST/BGST Act,
2017’) provides a period of limitation of three months for filing
of an appeal. The Appellate Authority has been further conferred
with power to condone delay for a period of maximum one
month on showing cogent and sufficient reasons.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that against the impugned order, the petitioner has a
remedy to file a Second Appeal under Section 112 of the
CGST/BGST Act, 2017 which he may be allowed to avail.
7. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to
the same.
8. In such circumstance, we accept the prayer of
learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ application is
permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to seek
his remedy before the competent forum, as may be advised to
Patna High Court CWJC No.2664 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
5/5
him.
9. It is made clear that we have not recorded any
opinion on the merit of contentions of the petitioner.
10. This writ application stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Kumar Manish, J)
Abhishek/-
lekhi/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.