M/S Rani Enterprises vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allowed for filing an appeal within three months and seeking condonation of delay for a further period of one month. This meant an appeal could have been filed on or before April 29, 2023. The petitioner failed to avail this remedy. Furthermore, the Court noted that Section 30 of the GST Act provided for an application for revocation of cancellation within thirty days of the order. The Government also introduced an Amnesty Scheme via Circular No. 3 of 2023, allowing restoration of registration between March 31, 2023, and August 31, 2023, which the petitioner also did not utilize. The Court emphasized that the law favors the diligent and not the indolent, and the petitioner's delay in pursuing available remedies stands against them. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

M/s Rani Enterprises, through its proprietor Vijay Kumar, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The order of cancellation was passed on December 30, 2022, following a show-cause notice issued on August 26, 2022, to which the petitioner had replied. The petitioner did not avail the statutory appellate remedy provided under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allowed for an appeal within three months, extendable by one month for delay condonation. The petitioner also failed to utilize the Amnesty Scheme introduced by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which permitted restoration of registration for cancelled dealers upon payment of dues between March 31, 2023, and August 31, 2023. The Court noted that the petitioner had not availed either of these remedies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the order of cancellation of GST registration by way of a writ petition when statutory remedies of appeal and revocation of cancellation were available but not availed, and the time limit for these remedies has expired? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner implicitly sought to challenge the cancellation order through the writ jurisdiction, suggesting a grievance that warranted judicial intervention despite the expiry of statutory timelines. The judgment does not explicitly record any specific arguments made by the petitioner regarding the merits of the cancellation or the reasons for not availing the statutory remedies. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, through the Union of India and other GST authorities, would likely argue that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 107 of the BGST Act and that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the petitioner's failure to exhaust these remedies and the expiry of the limitation period. They would also point to the availability of the Amnesty Scheme as another avenue not pursued by the petitioner.