M/S Nilam Yadav vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Nilam Yadav, is aggrieved by the cancellation of its GST registration, as per an order dated 18.01.2022 passed by the Superintendent, CGST and CX, Motihari Range. The petitioner had an appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. While the Act permits filing an appeal within three months and a further month for delay condonation, the petitioner's appeal was filed on 04.11.2023, significantly beyond the extended limitation period, which included savings due to the Supreme Court's Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020. The petitioner also did not avail of the Amnesty Scheme introduced by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which allowed restoration of registration for cancelled dealers. The petitioner does not dispute receiving the show-cause notice for cancellation, which cited non-filing of returns for six continuous months.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. The primary reason is the availability of an effective alternative remedy, which the petitioner failed to avail diligently. The Court noted that the petitioner's appeal was filed with gross delay, far exceeding the extended limitation period granted by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which provided a window for filing appeals until 90 days from 01.03.2022. The petitioner also failed to utilize the Amnesty Scheme offered by Circular No. 3 of 2023. The Court emphasized that the law favors diligent litigants, and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not to be invoked when alternate remedies exist and have not been pursued within stipulated times. The petitioner did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice for non-filing of returns for six continuous months. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable when an alternate appellate remedy is available and has not been diligently availed by the petitioner? This issue turns on the principles of alternative remedy and the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner's arguments are not explicitly recorded in the judgment. However, by filing a writ petition, it implicitly argues that the cancellation of registration was erroneous or that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to extenuating circumstances, despite not explicitly stating them. Respondent's Arguments: The respondents, through the Government Pleader, would likely argue that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the availability of an effective alternative remedy (appeal) and the petitioner's failure to pursue it diligently within the prescribed time limits, including the extended periods granted by the Supreme Court and the Amnesty Scheme.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 01-07-2024 The petitioner is aggrieved with the cancellation of registration by Annexure-3 order passed on 18.01.2022. 2. Admittedly, there is an appellate remedy which the petitioner availed with gross delay.
Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“BGST Act” hereafter) permits an appeal to be filed within three months and also apply for delay condonation with satisfactory reasons within a further period of one month. We have to take into account the saving of limitation granted by the 2/3 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, In Re: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation. Therein, due to the pandemic situation limitation was saved between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. It was also directed that an appeal could be filed within ninety days from 01.03.2022. Here, the order impugned in the appeal was dated 18.01.2022. An appeal was to be filed on or before 30.05.2022 as permitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and if necessary with a delay condonation application within one month thereafter. The appeal is said to have been filed only on 04.11.2023, after about one year five months from the date on which even the extended limitation period expired. Further, the Government had come out with an Amnesty Scheme by Circular No. 3 of 2023, by which the registered dealers, whose registrations were cancelled were permitted to restore their registration on payment of all dues between 31.03.2023 to 31.08.2023. The petitioner did not avail of such remedy also.
In the above circumstances, we find no reason to invoke the extraordinary juri iction under Article 226, especially since it is not a measure to be employed where there are alternate remedies available and the assessee has not been diligent in availing such alternate remedies within the stipulated 3/3 time. The law favours the diligent and not the indolent.
The petitioner does not have any case that the show-cause notice was not received by him. Further, it is also pertinent that the reason stated in the show-cause notice for cancellation of registration is that the petitioner has not filed returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner does not have a case that he had in fact filed a return in the continuous period of six months.
The writ petition would stand dismissed.
Anushka/- (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Partha Sarthy, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 02.07.2024 Transmission Date
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.