Ms/ Baba Amar Singh Marwal Grenite And Tiles vs. The Union Of INDIA

In present writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 03.06.2024, passed by the 2/5 Additional Commissioner Appeal of Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga, whereby learned Appellate Authority has rejected

The learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that it is a proprietorship firm, primarily engaged in the sale and purchase of granite and tiles. It has obtained registration under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and on failure to file return for continuous period of more than six months, it was issued with a show cause notice dated 14.11.2023 to submit a reply within 30 days from the date of service and to appear on 12.12.2023. The show cause notice was neither sent to the registered e.mail nor at the official address, but admits that it was uploaded on common portal on 14.11.2023. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authority have proceeded ex parte with the matter in absence of the reply to show cause notice and vide order dated 27.12.2023, cancelled the registration of petitioner’s firm, without providing an opportunity of hearing to the 3/5 petitioner. Against the order of cancellation of registration, the petitioner has filed an Appeal bearing no. AD100524010705P, before the Appellate Authority on 22.05.2024. But the learned Appellate Authority, vide order dated 03.06.2024, has rejected

The learned counsel for the respondent department Sri Vivek Prasad, learned GP 7 submits that the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled on 27.12.2023 w.e.f. 01.12.2023 in accordance with provisions of section 29. The petitioner has not filed any revocation application against the order of cancellation as provided under section 30 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, but instead has filed a belated appeal before the Additional Commissioner of the State Taxes on 22.05.2024/ 25.04.2024 i.e., almost 5 months after the cause of action. The learned Appellate Authority under the provision of Section 107(4) of the BGST Act, 2017 has power to condone the delay of only 30 days, and not beyond. Thus, the learned Appellate Authority has rightly passed the impugned order dated 03.06.2024. 6. Heard the parties and on appreciation of the contentions made by the respective parties, we are of the opinion that the present case is covered by Judgment dated 4/5 14.07.2026, passed by this Court in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026 (M.K Traders vs State of Bihar & Ors.). The relevant paragraph 10.3 is reproduced hereinbelow:

3 Therefore, the condonation of delay by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India in filing of appeal under Section 107 of BGST Act 2017 in our opinion, will be against the legislative intent manifested in the provision of BGST Act 2017. It is true that High Court has wide juri iction under Article 226 of constitution of India but does not mean that it can disregard the substantive provision of a Statute. Accordingly, we come to the conclusion that this Court can’t entertain the present writ application filed after expiry of prescribed time limit.

In present case, the petitioner admits the service of notice on the common portal, which is sufficient as per Section 169 of the BGST Act, 2017. The petitioner in its indolent approach has neither filed an application for revocation of order of cancellation under Section 30 nor filed the statutory appeal within the prescribed time. Even the present writ application has been filed after the passage of statutory time for filing appeal, almost after a delay of one and half years.

Accordingly, the present writ application is not entertainable in terms of Judgment dated 14.07.2026 passed by this Court in CWJC No. 6180 of 2026 (M. K. Traders Vrs. State of Bihar & ors.) However, the petitioner is at liberty to file final return in terms of Section 45 of the BGST Act, 2017 and may apply for fresh registration. The writ application is 5/5 disposed of with aforesaid liberty.