Kaushik Satyam vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the present case is covered by its previous judgment in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026 (M.K. Traders Vrs. State of Bihar and Ors.). The Court reiterated that it has no power under Article 226 of the Constitution to condone delay beyond the period prescribed in Section 107(4) of the BGST Act, which limits the Appellate Authority's power to condone delay to 30 days. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and Ors Vrs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, emphasizing that the BGST Act is a special Act and Section 162 bars civil court jurisdiction. The Court noted that Section 117(2) provides for appeals to the High Court within 180 days with a proviso for condonation of delay upon sufficient cause, but this applies to appellate jurisdiction, not writ jurisdiction concerning Section 107 appeals. The Court concluded that condoning delay in filing an appeal under Section 107 in writ jurisdiction would be against the legislative intent. Therefore, the writ application was not entertainable. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a final return under Section 45 and apply for fresh registration if advised.

Facts

The petitioner, Kaushik Satyam, is challenging the cancellation of his GST registration by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, Shahabad, vide order dated 16.05.2024. The cancellation was allegedly due to non-filing of returns. The petitioner claims he subsequently furnished returns and that the order was passed in violation of natural justice due to lack of adequate personal hearing. An application for condonation of delay in filing a revocation application was rejected by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax on 04.09.2024. Subsequently, an appeal filed on 18.02.2025 before the Appellate Authority was rejected on 29.04.2025 as being barred by limitation. The petitioner seeks to quash both the cancellation order and the appellate order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes on 16.05.2024 was valid, considering the petitioner's claim of subsequent return filing and violation of natural justice principles regarding personal hearing, as per Section 29 of the CGST/BGST Act? 2. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal on 29.04.2025 on grounds of limitation, when the appeal was filed on 18.02.2025 against the order dated 04.09.2024 (rejecting condonation of delay) and the original cancellation order dated 16.05.2024, as per Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act? Petitioner's contentions: The cancellation order was passed in violation of natural justice. The delay in filing the revocation application was due to genuine reasons, and the appellate authority should have considered the condonation application. The appeal filed was within the permissible period or the delay should have been condoned. Revenue's contentions: The show cause notice for cancellation was issued on the common portal, which is a valid mode of service under Section 169. The petitioner did not file a reply. The revocation application was not filed within time, nor was a reply submitted to the show cause notice for revocation. The appeal before the Appellate Authority was filed with a delay of almost five months and the Appellate Authority correctly rejected it as it has no power to condone delay beyond one month under Section 107. The writ application itself is delayed.