M/S Tiscon Bricks Rachiyahi vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Tiscon Bricks Rachiyahi, filed a writ petition challenging the appellate order dated 18.09.2023, which rejected their appeal on grounds of delay. The appeal was against an order dated 01.03.2023, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration. The petitioner availed the appellate remedy but filed the appeal significantly after the prescribed limitation period. The order of cancellation was based on the petitioner failing to file returns for a continuous period of six months, a fact not disputed by the petitioner. The Court also noted the existence of an Amnesty Scheme by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which allowed restoration of registration for cancelled dealers upon payment of dues, a remedy the petitioner also did not avail.

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 alternative statutory remedy was available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which permits appeals to be filed within three months, with a further one-month condonation period for delay upon showing satisfactory reasons. The petitioner filed their appeal on 08.08.2023, well after the expiry of the limitation period for an order dated 01.03.2023. The Court emphasized that the law favors diligent litigants and not those who are indolent in pursuing their remedies. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner did not avail of the Amnesty Scheme offered by the Government, which could have provided a path for registration restoration. The Court also found no dispute regarding the petitioner's failure to file returns for six consecutive months, which was the basis for the cancellation of registration. The ratio decidendi is that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for diligent availing of alternative remedies. The writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternative statutory remedy is available but was not availed diligently by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner's failure to file GST returns for a continuous period of six months, leading to the cancellation of registration, is a valid ground for dismissal of the writ petition? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner implicitly argued for the invocation of writ jurisdiction by filing the petition, suggesting that the rejection of their appeal on technical grounds of delay was unjust. They did not explicitly argue against the validity of the cancellation order itself, but rather against the procedural outcome of their appeal. Revenue's arguments: The respondents, represented by the Union of India and other GST authorities, contended that the writ petition should be dismissed because an alternative appellate remedy was available under Section 107 of the BGST Act. They argued that the petitioner failed to avail this remedy within the stipulated time and did not demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. They also highlighted the petitioner's failure to utilize the Amnesty Scheme and the undisputed fact of non-filing of returns.