M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Ashish Enterprises, is aggrieved by the cancellation of its GST registration, an order passed on March 1, 2023. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order, but it was rejected as delayed on September 18, 2023. The order for cancellation was dated March 1, 2023. According to Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, an appeal should be filed within three months, with a further one-month window for delay condonation. The appeal was filed on August 10, 2023, significantly after the prescribed limitation period. The petitioner also did not avail of an Amnesty Scheme offered by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which allowed restoration of registration for cancelled dealers who paid dues 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 six continuous months.
Held
The Court held that the appeal filed by the petitioner was indeed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The order of cancellation was dated March 1, 2023. The statutory period for filing an appeal was three months, expiring on May 29, 2023, with a further one-month window for delay condonation, ending on June 29, 2023. The appeal was filed on August 10, 2023. The Court found the petitioner's reliance on Purushottam Stores vs. The State of Bihar & Ors; CWJC No. 4349 of 2023 to be inapplicable as the dismissal of the appeal was due to delay. The Court also noted that the petitioner had not availed of the Amnesty Scheme. Consequently, the Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, as it is not meant for situations where alternate remedies exist and the assessee has not been diligent. The law favors the diligent. The writ petition was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner against the cancellation of GST registration was within the prescribed limitation period under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? 2. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a case where the petitioner has failed to avail of alternate remedies within the stipulated time? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner relied on the case of Purushottam Stores vs. The State of Bihar & Ors; CWJC No. 4349 of 2023. (No other arguments were recorded for the petitioner). Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the appeal was filed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 107 of the BGST Act and that the petitioner had not been diligent in availing alternate remedies. The revenue also noted that the petitioner did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice or the reason for cancellation (non-filing of returns for six months).
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 : 06-03-2024 The petitioner is aggrieved with the cancellation of registration by Annexure-P/3 order passed on 01.03.2023. against which an appeal was filed which was rejected as delayed, on 18.09.2023 at Annexure-P/5. 2. 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 2/3 with satisfactory reasons within a further period of one month. Here, the order impugned in the appeal was dated 01.03.2023. An appeal was to be filed on or before 29.05.2023 and if necessary with a delay condonation application within one month thereafter, i.e. on or before 29.06.2023. The appeal is said to have been filed only on 10.08.2023, after the limitation period expired.
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 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 petitioner relies on Purushottam Stores vs. The State of Bihar & Ors; CWJC No. 4349 of 2023, which 3/3 is not applicable since the dismissal of the appeal is, as a consequence of the delay occasioned.
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 favors the diligent and not the indolent.
The writ petition would stand dismissed.
Sharun/- (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Harish Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 07.03.2024 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.