M/S Antima Devi vs. The Union Of INDIA

CWJC/3935/2024HC PatnaGSTCNR BRHC01021995202405 March 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR,THE CHIEF JUSTICE-3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Antima Devi, is challenging the cancellation of its GST registration, which was effective from 27.04.2023, following a show-cause notice issued on 15.01.2023. The petitioner filed an appeal against the cancellation order on 30.08.2023. Under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act, an appeal is to be filed within three months of the order, with a further one-month window for condonation of delay. The appeal was therefore filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. Additionally, the petitioner did not avail of the Amnesty Scheme, introduced by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which allowed for the restoration of cancelled registrations upon payment of dues between 31.03.2023 and 31.08.2023. The petitioner has not controverted the allegation that it failed to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner filed an appeal against the cancellation of its GST registration beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act. The appeal was filed on 30.08.2023, whereas the limitation period expired on 26.07.2023, with a further one-month window for delay condonation expiring on 26.08.2023. The petitioner also failed to avail the Amnesty Scheme, which provided an opportunity for restoration of cancelled registrations between 31.03.2023 and 31.08.2023. The Court noted that the law favors the diligent and not the indolent, and the delay in filing the appeal stands against the petitioner. Consequently, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction. No specific issue was left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner against the cancellation of GST registration is maintainable, considering it was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act and without availing the condonation of delay provision. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief despite not availing the Amnesty Scheme offered by the Government through Circular No. 3 of 2023, which provided an opportunity for restoration of cancelled registrations. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner is before the High Court challenging the cancellation of its registration. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the appeal or the applicability of the Amnesty Scheme. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents (Union of India and State of Bihar). However, the court's reasoning implies that the respondents would likely rely on the statutory provisions regarding limitation and the petitioner's failure to avail available remedies.

Sections Cited

Section 107(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3935 of 2024 ====================================================== M/s Antima Devi having its office at Ward No. -2, Near Bank of India, Sehuka, Ramgarh, Kaimur Bhabua, Bihar 821110 through its Proprietor, Antima Devi (Female), aged about 34 years, D/o Ramnath Singh at Ward No- 2, Near Bank of India, Sehuka, Ramgarh, Kaimur, Bhabua, Bihar 821110. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110 001. 2. The Secretary Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110 001. 3. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Commercial Tax Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Pr. Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, Patna-1, Patna. 5. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Commercial Tax Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 6. The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) CGST and CX (Appeals) Patna, Bihar. 7. The Joint Commissioner, CGST and CX, Bhabua, Bihar. 8. The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, CGST and CX Gaya Division, Gaya, Bihar. 9. The Superintendent, CGST and CX, Bhabua Range, Bihar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advocate Mr. Akash Chaturvedi, Advocate Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vivek Prasad, G.P. -7 For the UOI : Dr. K.N. Singh, ASG Mr. Anshuman Singh, Sr. SC, CGST & CX ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 05-03-2024 The petitioner is before this Court challenging the cancellation of registration dated 27.04.2023 at Annexure-P-2, before which a show-cause notice was issued on 15.01.2023 at 2/3 Annexure-P/1. Against the order of cancellation of registration, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 30.08.2023. 2. In the BGST Act, u/s 107(4) there is a provision for filing an appeal within three months of the order and a further provision of condonation of delay, if the appeal is filed delayed, within one month of expiry of limitation. The appeal ought to have been filed on or before 26.07.2023 or before 26.08.2023 with a delay condonation application.

The petitioner filed an appeal on 30.08.2023, after expiry of the limitation period.

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 being not a registered dealer, there was no monitoring of his activities by the Department in the intervening period. There is no way to ascertain as to whether there was any transaction carried out during the said period. It is also a fact that the petitioner has filed a delayed appeal and also not availed the remedy of Amnesty Scheme which was made 3/3 applicable. The petitioner also does not in the memorandum of writ petition controvert the allegation in the show cause notice that he failed to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months.

The law favours the diligent and not the indolent. The delay stands against the petitioner.

Hence, we dismiss the writ petition; declining exercise of discretion.

P.K.P./- (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) (Harish Kumar, J) AFR/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.