Case Law Details
Rani Enterprises through its Proprietor Vs Union of India through Secretary (Patna High Court)
Rani Enterprises, through its proprietor, filed a petition against the cancellation of its GST registration, which occurred on December 30, 2022, following a show-cause notice issued on August 26, 2022. However, the petitioner failed to file an appeal within the required timeframe under Section 107 of the Bihar GST Act, which allowed for an appeal until March 30, 2023, with a one-month delay condonation period. Additionally, the petitioner did not apply for revocation of the cancellation within 30 days or avail of the government’s Amnesty Scheme to restore the registration by paying outstanding dues. The Court observed that the petitioner’s failure to use these available remedies within the prescribed limits led to the dismissal of the petition, emphasizing that the law favors those who act promptly.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PATNA HIGH COURT
The petitioner is before this Court challenging the order of cancellation of registration dated 30.12.2022 at Annexure-P/3, before which show-cause notice was issued on 26.08.2022, which was replied to. An appeal is provided from Annexure-P/3, which was not availed of.
2. 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 30.03.2023 and if necessary with a delay Condonation application within one month thereafter, i.e. on or before 29.04.2023. Hence, an appeal could have been filed on or before 29.04.2023, which provision was not availed by the petitioner herein.
3. The petitioner has not availed such remedy and at this point of time, cannot seek to avail the appellate remedy for reason of the limitation period having expired long prior.
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 such remedy also.
5. The petitioner was not a registered dealer after cancellation and there was no monitoring of his activities by the Department in the intervening period. There is no way to ascertain as to whether there was any transaction carried out during the said period. There is also the fact that the petitioner has not availed of the appellate remedy nor the Amnesty Scheme which was made applicable.
6. The law favors the diligent and not the indolent. The delay stands against the petitioner.
7. The writ petition would stand dismissed.
Author Bio
