Case Law Details
Raj Kishore Sah Vs Union of India (Patna High Court)
Writ petition is not admissible if an Assessee files an appeal after the limitation period and does not avail the benefit of Amnesty Scheme
Summary: The Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition of M/s Raj Kishore Sah challenging the cancellation of GST registration. The petitioner’s GST registration was canceled after a show-cause notice was issued on September 29, 2022, and an order followed on October 12, 2022. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order on December 22, 2023, after the prescribed limitation period under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act had expired. Additionally, the petitioner did not utilize the Government’s Amnesty Scheme, available from March 31, 2023, to August 31, 2023, which could have restored the registration upon payment of all dues. The court observed that the petitioner was not a registered dealer during the relevant period, and there was no way to monitor his business activities or ascertain if any transactions occurred. Citing the petitioner’s failure to act diligently by both delaying the appeal and not availing of the Amnesty Scheme, the court dismissed the petition and declined to exercise its discretion in favor of the petitioner.
*****
The Hon’ble Patna High Court in M/s Raj Kishore Sah v. Union of India [Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8376 of 2024 dated June 19, 2024], dismissed the writ petition challenging the cancellation of GST registration, where the Assessee had not availed remedy of the Amnesty scheme provided by the Government vide Notification No. 03/2023-Central Tax dated March 31, 2023 (“the Notification”) and filed the appeal after the time limit prescribed under section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (“the CGST Act”).
Facts:
M/s Raj Kishore Sah (“the Petitioner”), was served a notice dated September 29, 2022 (“SCN”) for cancellation of the GST registration. Thereafter, an order dated October 12, 2022 (“the Impugned Order”) was passed for cancellation of the GST registration of the Petitioner. Consequently, the Petitioner filed an appeal against the Impugned Order on December 22, 2023. However, the appeal was filed after the expiry of the limitation period prescribed under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act. Moreover, the Petitioner did not avail the remedy of the Amnesty scheme to restore registration on payment of all dues between March 31, 2023 to August 31, 2023.
Hence, aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Issue:
Whether the writ petition is admissible if an Assessee files the appeal after the limitation period and did not avail the benefit of Amnesty Scheme?
Held:
The Hon’ble Patna High court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8376 of 2024 held as under:
- Observed that, the Petitioner was not a registered dealer and there was no monitoring of activities by the department in the intervening period. Further, there was no way to ascertain whether any transactions were carried out during the period when the Petitioner’s registration was cancelled.
- Held that, an appeal must be filed within three months of the order and delay is condoned if appeal is delayed within one month of expiry of limitation. Therefore, the appeal ought to have been filed on or before January 11, 2023 or before February 10, 2023 with a delay condonation application. The Petitioner had filed a delayed appeal and had not availed remedy of the Amnesty Scheme offered by government through the Notification. Hence, the court dismissed the petition and declined to exercise its discretion in favor of the Petitioner.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PATNA HIGH COURT
The petitioner is before this Court challenging the cancellation of registration dated 12.10.2022 at Annexure-P/2, before which a show-cause notice was issued on 29.09.2022. Against the order of cancellation of registration, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 22.12.2023.
2. In the BGST Act, u/s 107(4) there is a provision for filing an appeal within three months of the order and a further provision of condonation of delay, if the appeal is filed delayed, within one month of expiry of limitation. The appeal ought to have been filed on or before 11.01.2023 or before 10.02.2023 with a delay condonation application.
3. The petitioner filed an appeal on 22.12.2023, after expiry of the limitation period.
4. 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. 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. It is also a fact that the petitioner has filed a delayed appeal and also not availed the remedy of Amnesty Scheme which was made applicable. The petitioner also does not in the memorandum of writ petition controvert the allegation in the show cause notice that he failed to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months.
6. The law favours the diligent and not the indolent. The delay stands against the petitioner.
7. Hence, we dismiss the writ petition; declining exercise of discretion.
*****
(Author can be reached at [email protected])
Author Bio
