2023 (5) TMI 1437 - HC - GST

Condonation of delay in filing beyond the prescribed statutory period under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - Validity and enforceability of the assessment orders issued under the BGST Act in the absence of a digital signature as mandated under the relevant rules - HELD THAT - A mere omission to put the signature cannot lead to invalidation of the assessment proceeding. Moreover by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 160 wherein the order has been acted upon by the person to whom it is issued and where such services has not been called in question at or in the earlier proceedings commenced continued or finalised pursuant to such notice order or communication. Even at the last hearing date it is specifically queried the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether any such claim was made before the Assessing Officer the Appellate Authority or at least before this Court. Before the Assessing Authority the petitioner failed to appear in the 30 days time provided after the show cause notice. Before the Appellate Authority it is admitted that there was no such contention taken. Even before this Court the memorandum of writ petition does not show such contention having been raised. On the last posting date on 27.04.2023 a query was raised and the petitioner then has filed a supplementary affidavit dated 28.04.2023 raising the contention of absence of digital signature. Going by the provision under sub-section (2) of Section 160 such a contention should have been taken before the Assessing Officer in so far as the absence of signature on the show cause notice or with respect to the assessment order before the Appellate Authority. Conclusion - i) Neither the Appellate Authority nor this Court has the power to condone the delay beyond the period specified in the statute and the period as extended by the Hon ble Supreme Court. ii) A mere omission to put the signature cannot lead to invalidation of the assessment proceeding. Petition dismissed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this judgment revolve around two primary issues: (1) the maintainability of the appeal in view of the delay in filing beyond the prescribed statutory period under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("BGST Act"); and (2) the validity and enforceability of the assessment orders issued under the BGST Act in the absence of a digital signature as mandated under the relevant rules.

Regarding the first issue, the Court examined whether the delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order could be condoned beyond the statutory limitation period, particularly in light of the extension of limitation granted by the Supreme Court during the COVID-19 pandemic. The second issue required analysis of the statutory requirements for authentication of orders under the BGST Act and whether non-compliance with digital signature requirements invalidated the assessment orders.

On the question of delay in filing the appeal, the relevant legal framework includes Section 107 of the BGST Act, which prescribes a three-month period for filing an appeal and allows for condonation of delay up to one additional month upon satisfactory explanation. The Supreme Court's suo motu writ petition extending limitation periods during the pandemic was also considered. The Court noted that the impugned order was dated 28.12.2021, and the extended limitation period, as per the Supreme Court's directions, allowed filing of appeals up to 29.05.2022. The appeal in the present case was filed on 19.07.2022, which exceeded even the extended period and the one-month condonation window under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act.

The Court reasoned that neither the Appellate Authority nor itself had the power to condone delay beyond the statutory and extended limitation periods. The Supreme Court had clarified that if a longer period of limitation is provided in the statute, that period would prevail. Since the BGST Act explicitly provided only one month for condonation beyond the three-month appeal period, the appeal filed after 19.07.2022 was barred. The petitioner's reliance on a prior judgment of the High Court during the pandemic period, where exceptional mitigating circumstances such as inundation were present, was distinguished on facts as those circumstances did not apply here.

Turning to the second issue concerning the absence of digital signatures on the assessment orders, the Court analyzed Rule 26(3) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which requires issuance of notices, certificates, and orders electronically with authentication through digital signature, e-signature, or any other mode of signature or verification notified by the Board. The petitioner contended that the absence of a digital signature rendered the orders invalid.

The Court examined the decisions cited by the petitioner, including a Supreme Court ruling on accessibility of judgments and a Bombay High Court decision interpreting a similar provision under the Maharashtra GST Rules. The Court distinguished the Supreme Court decision as relating to public accessibility of judgments, not orders under a statute applicable to a particular assessee. The Bombay High Court's interpretation was respectfully not followed, as the Court found the provisions of the Bihar GST Rules and Central GST Rules to be in pari materia and allowing verification by any mode of signature ordinarily acceptable under the Information Technology Act, 2000 or notified by the Board.

Reviewing the assessment file, the Court observed that the orders bore the signature of the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and were auto-populated as per Section 169(d) of the BGST Act, which permits service of communications by making them available on the common portal. The Court further relied on Section 160 of the BGST Act, which provides that no assessment or related proceedings shall be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect, or omission if the proceedings conform in substance and effect to the Act's requirements. Subsection (2) of Section 160 bars questioning the service of any notice or order if the person to whom it was issued acted upon it or did not raise the issue in earlier proceedings.

The Court noted that the petitioner had failed to raise the issue of absence of digital signature before the Assessing Officer or the Appellate Authority, and only raised it belatedly before the High Court by way of a supplementary affidavit after a query was raised during the hearing. Since the petitioner did not avail the opportunity to contest the assessment within the prescribed 30 days after the show cause notice, and did not raise the signature issue in earlier proceedings, the Court held that the contention was not sustainable under Section 160(2).

In conclusion, the Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation and that the delay could not be condoned beyond the statutory and extended periods. The absence of a digital signature on the orders did not invalidate the assessment proceedings, especially given the statutory provisions protecting against invalidation due to procedural defects and the petitioner's failure to timely raise the issue. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Significant holdings of the Court include the following:

"Neither the Appellate Authority nor this Court has the power to condone the delay beyond the period specified in the statute and the period as extended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court."

"A mere omission to put the signature cannot lead to invalidation of the assessment proceeding."

"No assessment, re-assessment, adjudication, review, revision, appeal, rectification, notice, summons or other proceedings done ... shall be invalid or deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission therein, if such proceedings are in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intents, purposes and requirements of this Act."

"The service of any notice, order or communication shall not be called in question, if the notice, order or communication ... has already been acted upon by the person to whom it is issued or where such service has not been called in question at or in the earlier proceedings commenced, continued or finalized pursuant to such notice, order or communication."

These principles affirm the strict adherence to statutory limitation periods for appeals under the BGST Act, the limited scope for condonation of delay, and the protection of assessment proceedings from invalidation on technical or procedural grounds provided the substantive requirements of the Act are met and the affected party does not timely object.