Case Law Details
Brijesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar (Patna High Court)
In the case of Brijesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, the Patna High Court dismissed a petition challenging the cancellation of GST registration on the grounds of failure to pursue alternative remedies within the specified time limits. The petitioner had his GST registration cancelled on May 6, 2023, but sought to appeal the decision significantly past the allowed deadlines set forth by the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act). The BGST Act allows for an appeal to be filed within three months of the cancellation, with a possible extension of one month for filing a delay condonation application. Despite this, the petitioner filed the appeal only on April 26, 2024, approximately eight months after the deadline had expired, thus failing to demonstrate due diligence in following the required processes.
The court highlighted that the petitioner also did not take advantage of Section 30 of the GST Act, which provides an option for revocation of cancellation within thirty days of the cancellation order. Additionally, an Amnesty Scheme was introduced through Circular No. 3 of 2023, allowing registered dealers whose registrations had been cancelled to restore their registrations by paying all dues within a specific period. The petitioner did not utilize this remedy either. The court underscored that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be invoked in situations where alternate remedies exist and have not been pursued diligently. The judgment emphasized that the law favors those who act promptly and responsibly in availing themselves of legal remedies.
The Patna High Court concluded by affirming that the petitioner had not provided any evidence to indicate that he did not receive the show-cause notice, which indicated his failure to file returns for six consecutive months as the reason for cancellation. Given these circumstances, the court found no grounds to intervene in the matter and dismissed the writ petition. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and the necessity for taxpayers to actively engage with the available remedies to address grievances related to GST registration cancellations.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PATNA HIGH COURT
The petitioner is aggrieved with the order of cancellation of registration passed on 06.05.2023.
2. Admittedly, there is an appellate remedy which the petitioner availed with gross delay.
3. Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“BGST Act” hereafter) permits an appeal to be filed within three months and also apply for delay condonation with satisfactory reasons within a further period of one month. An appeal was to be filed on or before 04.08.2023 and if necessary with a delay condonation application within one month thereafter, i.e. on or before 03.09.2023. Hence, an appeal could have been filed on or before 03.09.2023, which provision was not availed by the petitioner herein. The appeal is said to have been filed only on 26.04.2024, after about eight months from the date on which even the extended limitation period expired.
4. Section 30 of the GST Act also provides for an application for revocation of cancellation within thirty days of the order. Further, the Government had come out with an Amnesty Scheme by Circular No. 3 of 2023, by which the registered dealers, whose registrations were cancelled were permitted to restore their registration on payment of all dues between 31.03.2023 to 31.08.2023. The petitioner did not avail of such remedy also.
5. In the above circumstances, we find no reason to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, especially since it is not a measure to be employed where there are alternate remedies available and the assessee has not been diligent in availing such alternate remedies within the stipulated time. The law favours the diligent and not the indolent.
6. The petitioner does not have any case that the show-cause notice was not received by him. Further, it is also pertinent that the reason stated in the show-cause notice for cancellation of registration is that the petitioner has not filed returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner does not have a case that he had in fact filed a return in the continuous period of six months.
7. The writ petition would stand dismissed.
Author Bio
