Atul Kumar Singh @ Bhutan Singh vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Atul Kumar Singh, is challenging the cancellation of his GST registration by an order dated July 17, 2021. The petitioner availed of the appellate remedy with significant delay. Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, allows appeals within three months, with a further one-month period for delay condonation. The Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 extended limitation periods due to the pandemic. Despite these provisions, the petitioner filed their appeal on April 22, 2024, approximately one year and eleven months after the extended limitation period expired. Furthermore, the petitioner did not avail of the Government's Amnesty Scheme (Circular No. 3 of 2023) which allowed restoration of cancelled registrations upon payment of dues between March 31, 2023, and August 31, 2023. The petitioner does not dispute receiving the show-cause notice for cancellation, which cited non-filing of returns for three consecutive tax periods.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The primary reason for this decision is the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the petitioner had availed of this appellate remedy but with gross delay. The judgment specifically addresses the extended limitation periods granted by the Supreme Court due to the pandemic, stating that even with these extensions, the appeal was filed significantly late. The Court found no reason to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction when alternate remedies exist and the assessee has not been diligent in pursuing them within the stipulated time. The Court emphasized that the law favors the diligent, not the indolent. Furthermore, the petitioner did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice for cancellation, nor did they dispute the stated reason for cancellation, which was the non-filing of returns for three consecutive tax periods. The petitioner also failed to avail of the Government's Amnesty Scheme. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, given the existence of an alternative appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the petitioner's failure to diligently avail of it within the prescribed and extended timelines. 2. Whether the petitioner has made out a case for condonation of the inordinate delay in filing the appeal against the cancellation of registration, considering the Supreme Court's directions regarding the extension of limitation due to the pandemic and the subsequent expiry of the extended period. 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief when they failed to avail of the Government's Amnesty Scheme for restoration of cancelled registrations and do not dispute the grounds for cancellation, namely, non-filing of returns for three consecutive tax periods. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner implicitly argues for the maintainability of the writ petition by approaching the High Court directly and by the very act of filing the petition. They likely contend that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, possibly due to reasons not fully elaborated in the judgment but implied by the reliance on the Supreme Court's Suo Motu order. They may also argue that the cancellation of registration was unjust or that there were extenuating circumstances for not filing returns. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents, represented by the Union of India and the State of Bihar, would argue that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 107 of the BGST Act. They would emphasize the gross delay in filing the appeal, exceeding the statutory and extended limitation periods, and the petitioner's failure to avail of the Amnesty Scheme. They would also highlight that the petitioner does not dispute the reason for cancellation, i.e., non-filing of returns.