M/S Doskey Infrastructure And Construction Private Limited vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the writ application was not entertainable. It noted that the petitioner admitted to not submitting a reply to the show cause notice and failing to appear for the scheduled personal hearing on 04.09.2023. The Court found the petitioner's reliance on the judgment in M/s S.P. Singla Construction Pvt. Ltd. to be misconceived, as the facts of the present case, particularly the failure to comply with statutory requirements, were distinct. The Court referred to its own judgment in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026 (M.K Traders Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors.), which held that entertaining a writ application filed after an unexplained delay of approximately 3 years would frustrate legislative intent. The Court emphasized that while alternative remedies are not an absolute bar in exceptional circumstances, a writ petition filed beyond the statutory period for appeal, as in this case (approximately 21 months delay), is generally not entertainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court did not decide on the merits of the cancellation order itself but dismissed the writ petition on grounds of delay and non-compliance with statutory procedures. The petitioner was granted liberty to file its final return and thereafter make a fresh application for registration.

Facts

M/s Doskey Infrastructure and Construction Private Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated August 8, 2023, issued by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, Patna, for cancellation of its GST registration. The petitioner also sought to quash the cancellation order dated September 9, 2023, and sought restoration of its registration. The petitioner argued that it was denied a sufficient opportunity for personal hearing and that the cancellation order was non-speaking. The petitioner stated it had filed GST returns properly up to March 2023 and relied on previous High Court judgments. The respondent department contended that the petitioner failed to respond to the show cause notice and did not avail alternative remedies like filing a revocation application or an appeal, leading to the present writ application being filed after a significant delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration vide order dated 09.09.2023, passed by the respondent no. 4, is liable to be quashed on the ground of denial of adequate opportunity of personal hearing, as contemplated under Rule 22(1) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the present writ application is maintainable given the existence of alternative statutory remedies under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, and Section 30 of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, and the significant delay in filing the petition? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was passed without granting an adequate opportunity of being heard and was a non-speaking order. They relied on judgments in CWJC no. 15301/2023 (M/s Kapildeo Prasad Vs The State of Bihar & Ors.) and CWJC no. 15748 of 2024 (M/s S.P. Singla Construction Pvt. Ltd Vs. Union of India), asserting that the lack of personal hearing alone warrants setting aside the order. They expressed readiness to comply with any conditions for registration restoration and sought permission to file a revocation application. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent department argued that the petitioner failed to respond to the show cause notice and did not file any revocation application or statutory appeal. They contended that the writ application was filed after a delay of approximately 21 months, rendering it unfit for entertainment. They also stated the petitioner did not comply with the statutory requirement of attending the personal hearing.