Kumari Anuradha vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had not availed the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. The Court noted that the writ application was filed after the expiry of the time limit prescribed under Section 107. Citing its own previous decision in M K Traders vs State of Bihar and Ors. (CWJC No. 6180 of 2026), the Court observed that a writ petition filed beyond the statutory period for filing an appeal and without any exceptional circumstances ought not to be entertained. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the writ petition but granted the petitioner liberty to file a final return under Section 45 of the GST Act, 2017, and to apply for fresh registration in accordance with law.

Facts

The petitioner, Kumari Anuradha, proprietor of M/s Abhijeet Enterprises, filed a writ application challenging the cancellation of her GST registration by the competent authority on July 31, 2023. The cancellation was based on the ground of non-furnishing of returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice on January 15, 2023, under Rule 22(1) of the BGST/CGST Rules, 2017, with thirty days granted for a reply. The petitioner claims the cancellation order was non-speaking, passed without adequate opportunity of hearing, and that she subsequently regularized her defaults by filing pending returns and depositing dues, yet her registration remained cancelled. The State argued that the petitioner had adequate statutory remedies, including revocation of cancellation and appeal, which she failed to avail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner has alternative statutory remedies under the CGST Act, 2017, specifically Section 107 for appeal, and has failed to avail them within the prescribed time limit? The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was non-speaking and passed without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing, despite which she had regularized her defaults. The petitioner contended that her GST registration should be restored. The State contended that the petitioner had adequate statutory remedies available under the CGST Act, including the remedy of revocation of cancellation of registration and appeal under Section 107. The State further argued that the petitioner had failed to avail these remedies and had filed the writ petition beyond the statutory period for appeal without any exceptional circumstances, citing the High Court's decision in M K Traders vs State of Bihar and Ors. CWJC No. 6180 of 2026.