M/S Bharti Enterprises (Gstin- 10Btjpb0451R1Zu) vs. The Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Bharti Enterprises, is challenging the cancellation of its GST registration by an order dated April 13, 2022. The petitioner filed an appeal against this 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 condonation period for delays. The petitioner's appeal was filed on December 16, 2023, approximately one year and six months after the extended limitation period expired. The petitioner did not avail of an Amnesty Scheme offered by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which allowed for the restoration of cancelled registrations between March 31, 2023, and August 31, 2023. The petitioner did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice for cancellation, which cited non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months.
Held
The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The reasoning was that an alternate statutory remedy was available to the petitioner, and the petitioner had not been diligent in availing it within the stipulated time. The Court emphasized that the law favors the diligent and not the indolent. The Court noted that the petitioner had filed the appeal with gross delay, far beyond the extended limitation period. Furthermore, the petitioner did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice for cancellation, nor did it dispute the factual basis of the cancellation, which was the non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months. The Court also observed that the petitioner had failed to avail of the Amnesty Scheme offered by the government. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts should not entertain writ petitions where statutory remedies are available and have not been diligently pursued by the petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a writ petition when an alternate statutory remedy is available, and the petitioner has failed to diligently pursue it within the prescribed time limits, specifically concerning the cancellation of GST registration under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. Whether the petitioner's failure to file returns for a continuous period of six months, as stated in the show-cause notice, justifies the cancellation of its GST registration. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner sought to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court. The revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that the petitioner was not diligent in availing the alternate remedy of appeal within the stipulated time. They also highlighted that the petitioner did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice for cancellation, which was based on the ground of non-filing of returns for six continuous months, and that the petitioner did not challenge the factual basis of this ground. The revenue also pointed out that the petitioner failed to avail the Amnesty Scheme.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 06-05-2024 The petitioner is aggrieved with the cancellation of registration by Annexure-P/3 series order passed on 13.04.2022. 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. Here, 2/3 the order impugned in the appeal was dated 13.04.2022. An appeal was to be filed on or before 30.07.2022 and if necessary with a delay condonation application within one month thereafter. The appeal is said to have been filed only on 16.12.2023, after about one years and six months from the date on which even the extended limitation period expired. 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 time. The law favours the diligent and not the indolent.
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.
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 3/3 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.
shivank/- (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) (Harish Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 06.05.2024. Transmission Date NA
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.