Case Law Details
Sanjeev Kumar Sharma Vs State of Bihar (Patna High Court)
In the case of Sanjeev Kumar Sharma Vs State of Bihar, the Patna High Court upheld the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration due to non-compliance with the appeal filing deadline and failure to take advantage of an amnesty scheme. The petitioner’s registration was initially canceled on February 9, 2023, due to a six-month lapse in filing GST returns. Although he filed an appeal on January 31, 2024, the court found it to be significantly delayed beyond the statutory period permitted under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act). This section allows for an appeal within three months, with an additional one-month grace period for condonation, subject to valid reasons. In this case, the appeal was required by June 9, 2023, but was filed over six months later.
Additionally, the petitioner failed to utilize an Amnesty Scheme introduced by the government via Circular No. 3 of 2023. This scheme provided a temporary window from March 31 to August 31, 2023, allowing businesses with canceled registrations to reinstate them by clearing outstanding dues. The court noted that the petitioner neither filed returns on time nor used this alternative remedy. Given these circumstances, the court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, as there were available remedies the petitioner failed to pursue diligently.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PATNA HIGH COURT
The petitioner is aggrieved with the cancellation of registration by Annexure P-2 order passed on 09.02.2023. against which an appeal was filed which was rejected as delayed, on 14.03.2024 at Annexure P-3.
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. Here, the order impugned in the appeal was dated 09.02.2023. An appeal was to be filed on or before 10.05.2023 and if necessary with a delay condonation application within one month thereafter, i.e. on or before 09.06.2023. The appeal is said to have been filed only on 31.01.2024, after the limitation period expired.
3. 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.
4. 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.
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 favors the diligent and not the indolent.
6. The writ petition would stand dismissed.
Author Bio
