M/S Om Food Products Industries vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Om Food Products Industries, through its proprietor Chandradeep Kumar, is challenging an order dated January 5, 2022, which cancelled its GST registration. The petitioner filed an appeal against this cancellation order with significant delay. The statutory appeal period under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, allowed for filing within three months, with a further one-month window for delay condonation. The Supreme Court's directive in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 extended limitation periods due to the pandemic, allowing appeals to be filed within ninety days from March 1, 2022. Despite these extensions, the petitioner filed their appeal on September 14, 2023, approximately one year and four months after the extended deadline expired. Furthermore, the petitioner did not avail of 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.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. The primary reason for this decision is the existence of an effective alternate remedy under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the petitioner had availed this remedy with gross delay. The statutory period for filing an appeal was three months, with an additional one month for delay condonation. However, considering the Supreme Court's directive in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation periods due to the pandemic between March 15, 2020, and February 28, 2022, an appeal could be filed within ninety days from March 1, 2022. The impugned order was dated January 5, 2022, meaning the appeal should have been filed by May 30, 2022, with a possibility of condonation within a month thereafter. The petitioner filed the appeal on September 14, 2023, significantly beyond the extended limitation period. Furthermore, the petitioner did not avail the Amnesty Scheme offered by Circular No. 3 of 2023. The Court reiterated that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked when alternate remedies are available and the assessee has not been diligent. The Court also noted that the petitioner did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice for cancellation, which was based on non-filing of returns for six continuous months, and did not claim to have filed returns during that period. The ratio decidendi is that the High Court will not entertain a writ petition where an efficacious alternative remedy is available and the petitioner has failed to pursue it diligently within the prescribed time limits, especially when the delay is substantial and no valid reasons are provided for such delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternate appellate remedy exists, and the petitioner has failed to diligently avail of it within the stipulated time, considering the provisions of Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 regarding extension of limitation due to the pandemic. Petitioner's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or their failure to avail the alternate remedy. The petitioner's primary grievance is the cancellation of registration. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the respondents, would likely argue that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the existence of an effective alternate remedy under Section 107 of the BGST Act. They would emphasize the petitioner's gross delay in filing the appeal, even after considering the pandemic-related extensions granted by the Supreme Court, and the non-utilization of the Amnesty Scheme. The revenue would contend that the law favors diligent assessees and that the petitioner's inaction disentitles them from invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction.