M/S. Pathological Janch Ghar vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Pathological Janch Ghar, is challenging the cancellation of its GST registration, an order passed on March 7, 2023. The petitioner had an appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allows for filing an appeal within three months and a further one month for delay condonation with satisfactory reasons. The impugned order was dated March 7, 2023, meaning the appeal should have been filed by June 4, 2023, with a potential extension until July 4, 2023. However, the petitioner filed the appeal only on December 25, 2023, well after the limitation period expired. The petitioner did not avail of an Amnesty Scheme introduced by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which permitted restoration of cancelled registrations for dealers who paid all dues between March 31, 2023, and August 31, 2023. The petitioner also 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 primary reason for this decision was the availability of an alternative statutory remedy, specifically an appeal under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the petitioner had availed this remedy with gross delay. The statutory provision allows for an appeal to be filed within three months, with a further one-month period for delay condonation upon satisfactory reasons. The petitioner filed their appeal significantly after this period had expired. The Court emphasized that the law favors diligent individuals and not those who are indolent. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner did not avail of the Amnesty Scheme offered by the Government via Circular No. 3 of 2023, which provided an opportunity for registered dealers with cancelled registrations to restore them by paying dues. The petitioner also did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice for cancellation, which was issued due to non-filing of returns for six continuous months, nor did they claim to have filed returns during that period. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy is available and has not been diligently availed by the petitioner within the prescribed time limits, particularly concerning the cancellation of GST registration under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner implicitly sought relief from the High Court, likely arguing for condonation of delay or challenging the cancellation order on merits, though specific arguments are not detailed in the judgment. The petitioner's action of filing a writ petition suggests a belief that the delay in filing the appeal should be overlooked or that the cancellation itself was unjustified. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, represented by the Union of India and the State of Bihar, would likely argue that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the availability of an effective alternative remedy under Section 107 of the BGST Act. They would emphasize the petitioner's gross delay in filing the appeal and the failure to avail the Amnesty Scheme, asserting that the law favors diligent assessees and that the petitioner's inaction disentitles them to extraordinary relief. The respondents would also point to the valid reasons for cancellation cited in the show-cause notice.