Case Law Details
Association of Otolaryngologists of Bihar Vs Principal Commissioner (Patna High Court)
In the case of Association of Otolaryngologists of Bihar vs. Principal Commissioner, the Patna High Court dismissed the petition challenging the cancellation of GST registration dated October 18, 2022. The petitioner argued that they did not receive the notice for cancellation and failed to appeal or use the Amnesty Scheme introduced by GST Notification No. 03/2023–Central Tax [G.S.R. 246(E)] Dated: 31/03/2023, which allowed reinstatement of cancelled registrations from March 31, 2023, to August 31, 2023. The Court noted that the petitioner did not engage with available remedies or file a nil return despite claiming no taxable income during the relevant period. Emphasizing that the law favors those who diligently pursue their rights, the Court found no grounds for extraordinary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution and thus rejected the writ petition.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PATNA HIGH COURT
The petitioner is before this Court challenging the cancellation of registration dated 18.10.2022 at Annexure-P/3. A notice was issued as per Annexure-P/2, which it is contended was not received. An appeal is provided from Annexure-P/3, which was not availed of. 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.
2. Agitated here is a cancellation of registration of the year 2022. The petitioner being not a registered dealer, 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. We also notice that the petitioner has not availed of the appellate remedy nor the Amnesty Scheme which was made applicable.
3. The petitioner asserts in the writ petition that the petitioner had no taxable income during the six month period and hence the petitioner had failed to furnish returns. If there was no business, then a nil return ought to have been filed by the registered dealer.
4. There is no valid cause to invoke the extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since the petitioner failed to avail the statutory remedy or to seek restoration of his registration as per Circular No: 3/2023. The law favours the diligent and not the indolent. We dismiss the writ petition; declining exercise of discretion.
Author Bio
