Mohammad Shahid Salim 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. The reasoning was based on the fact that the cancellation of registration was for non-furnishing of returns for six months, and the petitioner had availed the statutory remedy of appeal, which was rejected on limitation grounds. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts are generally reluctant to exercise writ jurisdiction when statutory remedies have been availed and rejected, particularly on procedural grounds like limitation. The Court dismissed the writ petition but granted liberty to the petitioner 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, Mohammad Shahid Salim, proprietor of M/s Mohammad Shahid Salim, had his GST registration cancelled by the competent authority on August 10, 2022, due to non-furnishing of returns for six continuous months. A show cause notice was issued on July 30, 2022, with a seven-day response period, to which the petitioner replied on August 9, 2022. The petitioner contends the cancellation order was non-speaking and passed without adequate opportunity for hearing. An appeal filed on December 17, 2023, was rejected on April 19, 2024, due to limitation. The petitioner also states that post-cancellation, the GST portal did not allow filing subsequent returns.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration by the competent authority vide order dated 10.08.2022, on the ground of non-furnishing of returns for a continuous period of six months, was valid, considering the petitioner's contention that it was a non-speaking order passed without adequate opportunity of hearing? 2. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's appeal by the appellate authority on 19.04.2024, on the ground of limitation, was justified? Petitioner's arguments: The cancellation order was non-speaking and lacked adequate opportunity for hearing. The appeal was rejected on limitation grounds, despite the petitioner's inability to file returns post-cancellation due to portal restrictions. Revenue's arguments: The petitioner has adequate statutory remedies available, including revocation of cancellation and appeal, which were not properly availed. The petitioner also has the remedy of filing a fresh return under Section 45 of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, no interference by the High Court is warranted.