Runi Devi vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Runi Devi, challenged the cancellation of her GST registration dated April 12, 2023, which followed a show-cause notice issued on January 15, 2023. The petitioner filed an appeal against the cancellation order on August 29, 2023. The relevant law, Section 107(4) of the BGST Act, permits filing an appeal within three months of the order, with a further one-month window for delay condonation. Therefore, the appeal should have been filed by July 11, 2023, or by August 11, 2023, with a delay condonation application. The petitioner also did not avail of the Amnesty Scheme, introduced by 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 did not dispute the allegation in the show-cause notice that she failed to furnish returns for six continuous months.

Held

The Court held that the appeal filed by the petitioner on August 29, 2023, was beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act. The statutory period for filing the appeal was up to July 11, 2023, or with delay condonation, by August 11, 2023. The petitioner failed to meet these timelines. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner did not avail of the Amnesty Scheme, which provided an opportunity to restore cancelled registrations. The petitioner also did not dispute the allegation of failing to furnish returns for six continuous months. The Court emphasized that the law favors the diligent and not the indolent, and the delay in filing the appeal stood against the petitioner. Consequently, the Court declined to exercise its discretion and dismissed the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner on August 29, 2023, against the order of cancellation of registration dated April 12, 2023, was within the prescribed limitation period under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act, including any provision for condonation of delay? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to any relief despite failing to avail of the Amnesty Scheme (Circular No. 3 of 2023) and not disputing the failure to furnish returns for six continuous 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 delay or other aspects. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue's position, as reflected in the judgment, is that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period and that the petitioner failed to avail of the available remedies like the Amnesty Scheme and did not controvert the allegation of non-furnishing of returns.