M/S Manoj Kumar Chauhan vs. The Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Manoj Kumar Chauhan, a sole proprietorship firm, is challenging an order dated 30.08.2019 that cancelled its GST registration. The petitioner had an appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allows for appeals within three months and a further one-month period for delay condonation. The Supreme Court's suo motu order extended limitations due to the pandemic. Despite these provisions, the appeal was filed on 31.10.2023, approximately one year and five months after the extended limitation period expired. The petitioner also failed to avail a Government Amnesty Scheme (Circular No. 3 of 2023) which allowed restoration of cancelled registrations for dealers who paid dues between 31.03.2023 and 31.08.2023. The petitioner did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice, which cited non-filing of returns for six continuous months as the reason for cancellation.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. The primary reason is the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 107 of the BGST Act. The Court noted that the petitioner availed this remedy with gross delay, filing the appeal on 31.10.2023, long after the extended limitation period expired on 30.06.2022, considering the Supreme Court's directions regarding the pandemic. The Court emphasized that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not to be invoked when alternate remedies exist and the assessee has not been diligent. The law favors the diligent. Furthermore, the petitioner did not avail the Amnesty Scheme offered by the Government, which provided an opportunity for restoration of cancelled registrations. The petitioner also did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice or the reason for cancellation, which was non-filing of returns for six continuous months. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, given the availability of an alternate appellate remedy under Section 107 of the BGST Act, and the petitioner's failure to avail it diligently within the prescribed and extended limitation periods? 2. Whether the petitioner has made out a case for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, considering their inaction in pursuing the appellate remedy and their failure to utilize the Government's Amnesty Scheme? Petitioner's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the petitioner. However, the filing of the writ petition implies a challenge to the cancellation order and a request for relief despite the procedural delays. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents, represented by the Union of India and the State of Bihar, would likely argue that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy and has failed to pursue it diligently, rendering the writ petition infructuous. They would also point to the petitioner's failure to avail the Amnesty Scheme and the lack of any dispute regarding the show-cause notice or the reason for cancellation.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 08-04-2024 The petitioner is aggrieved with the cancellation of registration by Annexure-P/3 order passed on 30.08.2019. 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 2/3 have to take into account the saving of limitation granted by the 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 30.08.2019. An appeal was to be filed on or before 30.06.2022 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 31.10.2023, after about one years and five 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 3/3 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 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.
rohit/- (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Harish Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 09-04-2024 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.