M/S Rajkishore Sah (A Sole Proprietorship Firm) vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Rajkishore Sah, a sole proprietorship firm, challenged the cancellation of its GST registration dated 12.10.2022, which followed a show-cause notice issued on 29.09.2022. The petitioner filed an appeal against the cancellation order on 22.12.2023. Under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act, an appeal could be filed within three months, with a further one-month period for condonation of delay. This meant the appeal should have been filed by 11.01.2023, or by 10.02.2023 with a delay condonation application. The petitioner also did not avail of the Amnesty Scheme (Circular No. 3 of 2023) which allowed restoration of cancelled registrations between 31.03.2023 and 31.08.2023 upon payment of dues. The petitioner did not dispute the allegation in the show-cause notice that it failed to furnish returns for six continuous months.

Held

The Court held that the appeal filed by the petitioner on 22.12.2023 was significantly delayed, as the statutory period for filing an appeal under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act expired on 11.01.2023, with a further one-month window for delay condonation ending on 10.02.2023. The petitioner did not file a delay condonation application. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to avail the Amnesty Scheme offered by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which provided an opportunity to restore cancelled registrations between 31.03.2023 and 31.08.2023. The Court also noted that the petitioner did not dispute the allegation that it failed to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months, which was the basis for the cancellation. The Court emphasized that the law favors the diligent and not the indolent. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, declining to exercise discretion in favor of the petitioner due to the delay and failure to pursue available remedies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner on 22.12.2023 against the order of cancellation of registration dated 12.10.2022 is maintainable, considering the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act and the lack of a delay condonation application. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief despite failing to avail the Amnesty Scheme offered by Circular No. 3 of 2023 and not disputing the ground for cancellation of registration (failure to furnish returns for six months). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner challenged the cancellation of registration and filed an appeal. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the petitioner's counsel regarding the maintainability of the appeal or the merits of the cancellation order, other than the fact that an appeal was filed. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents implicitly argued that the appeal was time-barred as per Section 107(4) of the BGST Act and that the petitioner failed to avail the available remedies, including the Amnesty Scheme. The judgment notes that the petitioner did not controvert the allegation of failure to furnish returns.