M/S Sudhir Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that it was not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Regarding the first issue, while the petitioner argued the cancellation order was non-speaking and lacked adequate opportunity, the Court did not explicitly rule on this point. However, it noted that the petitioner had already availed the statutory remedy of appeal, which was rejected on grounds of limitation. This implicitly suggests that the Court considered the appeal process as a sufficient avenue for redressal, even if it failed due to the petitioner's delay. On the second issue, the Court agreed with the State that adequate statutory remedies were available. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had already filed an appeal, which was rejected on limitation. The Court's reasoning for dismissal was primarily based on the availability of statutory remedies and the fact that the petitioner had already attempted to use one such remedy (appeal) which was rejected on procedural grounds. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition but grant liberty to the petitioner to file a final return under Section 45 of the GST Act, 2017, and to apply for fresh registration.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sudhir Kumar, a proprietorship registered under GST, had its registration cancelled by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Bhagalpur (respondent no. 4) via an order dated 07-10-2021. This cancellation followed a show cause notice issued under Rule 22(1) of the BGST/CGST Rules, 2017, alleging non-furnishing of returns for six continuous months. The petitioner admits to not replying to the show cause notice within the granted seven days. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal on 24-09-2023, which was rejected by the competent authority on 26-09-2023 due to being filed beyond the limitation period. The petitioner then filed a writ petition seeking restoration of GST registration and quashing of the cancellation order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Bhagalpur, vide order dated 07-10-2021, is liable to be quashed on the grounds that it is a non-speaking order and was passed without providing adequate opportunity of hearing, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the availability of statutory remedies under the GST Act, including revocation of cancellation, appeal before the Appellate Authority, and filing a final return, as contended by the State? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was non-speaking and lacked adequate opportunity for hearing. They sought a writ of mandamus to restore their GST registration and a writ of certiorari to quash the cancellation order. State's Arguments: The State contended that the petitioner had adequate statutory remedies available under the GST Act, such as revocation of cancellation, appeal, and filing a final return under Section 45 of the GST Act, 2017, and therefore, the High Court should not interfere in its writ jurisdiction.