M/S Om Food Processing Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA

CWJC/3562/2024HC PatnaGSTCNR BRHC01007314202426 February 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR,THE CHIEF JUSTICE-3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Om Food Processing Private Limited, and its director, Chandradeep Kumar, are aggrieved by an order dated 21.01.2022, which cancelled their GST registration. The petitioner admits that an appellate remedy was available but was availed with significant delay. The order of cancellation was dated 21.01.2022. The Supreme Court's suo motu order in Re: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation extended limitation periods due to the pandemic, allowing appeals to be filed within ninety days from 01.03.2022. Thus, the petitioner could have filed an appeal by 31.05.2022, with a further month for delay condonation. However, the appeal was filed only on 26.09.2023, approximately one year and four months after the extended limitation expired. Additionally, the petitioner did not avail of the Amnesty Scheme introduced by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which allowed restoration of cancelled registrations upon payment of dues between 31.03.2023 and 31.08.2023.

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The reasoning was based on the availability of an alternate statutory remedy, which the petitioner failed to pursue diligently within the stipulated time. The Court noted that the order of cancellation was dated 21.01.2022. While the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 extended limitation periods due to the pandemic, allowing appeals to be filed by 31.05.2022 (with a further month for delay condonation), the petitioner filed their appeal only on 26.09.2023, long after the extended limitation expired. The Court emphasized that the law favors the diligent, not the indolent, and extraordinary jurisdiction is not a substitute for availing alternate remedies within time. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner also failed to avail the Amnesty Scheme introduced by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which provided an opportunity to restore cancelled registrations. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant relief to the petitioner, given the availability of an alternate statutory remedy and the petitioner's failure to avail it diligently within the prescribed time limits, including extensions granted due to the pandemic. 2. Whether the petitioner's failure to file an appeal within the extended limitation period, as per the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, and the subsequent failure to avail the Amnesty Scheme under Circular No. 3 of 2023, disentitles them from seeking equitable relief from the High Court. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner's primary argument, implied by filing the writ petition, is that the cancellation of registration warrants High Court intervention. They likely sought to argue for condonation of delay or to challenge the cancellation order on merits, though specific arguments are not detailed. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's position, as reflected in the court's reasoning, is that the petitioner was indolent and failed to pursue available remedies, including the statutory appeal and the Amnesty Scheme, within the stipulated timeframes. They would argue that the High Court should not interfere where alternative remedies exist and have not been pursued diligently.

Sections Cited

Section 107, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, Circular No. 3 of 2023

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.3562 of 2024 ====================================================== 1. M/s Om Food Processing Private Limited, 63P, Om Food Processing Private Limited, having its registered office at Deona Tilarath Barauni Industrial Area, Begusarai, Bihar- 851122 through its Director namely Chandradeep Kumar, Son of- Late Siya Ram Singh, resident of- Ward No.- 14, Lakho, Lakho, P.s.- Begusarai Muffasil, District- Begusarai 2. Chandradeep Kumar, Son of- Late Siya Ram Singh, Resident of- Ward No.- 14, Lakho, Lakho, P.s.- Begusarai Muffasil, District- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of India through Revenue Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. 2. The Commissioner of Customs, Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Patna, Bihar. 3. The Joint Commissioner, CGST and CX, Patna Central Circle, Annexe Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna. 4. The Superintendent, CGST and CX, Begusarai Range, Patna, Bihar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Smita Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N.Singh, ASG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 26-02-2024 The petitioner is aggrieved with the cancellation of registration by Annexure-P/1 (page-20) order passed on 21.01.2022. 2. Admittedly, there is an appellate remedy which the petitioner availed with gross delay.

Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax 2/3 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 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 21.01.2022. An appeal was to be filed on or before 31.05.2022 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 26.09.2023, after about one year four 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.

3/3

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 writ petition would stand dismissed.

rohit/- (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Harish Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 27-02-2024 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.