Munna Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Munna Kumar, is challenging the cancellation of his GST registration through an order dated 23.06.2022. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order with significant delay, approximately one year and one month after the order was passed. The statutory appeal period under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, allowed for filing within three months, with a further one-month window for delay condonation. The petitioner also failed to avail of a government Amnesty Scheme offered via Circular No. 3 of 2023, which permitted restoration of registration for cancelled dealers. The petitioner did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice for cancellation, which cited non-filing of returns for six continuous months. The petitioner did not claim to have filed returns during this period.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition should be dismissed. Regarding the first issue, the Court found no reason to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that writ jurisdiction is not to be employed where alternate remedies are available and the assessee has not been diligent in availing them within the stipulated time. The judgment explicitly referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, noting that the contention raised by the petitioner, similar to the one in Singh Enterprises, was rejected by the Supreme Court at paragraph 8 of that decision. The Court emphasized that the law favors the diligent, not the indolent. The petitioner's failure to avail the statutory appeal remedy within the prescribed time, including the condonation period, and their failure to utilize the Amnesty Scheme were critical factors. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's case and dismissed the writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court, in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can condone the delay in filing an appeal when the statutory appellate authority has not been approached within the prescribed time limits, and the petitioner has not demonstrated diligence in availing alternate remedies? This issue turns on the interpretation and application of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the principles of statutory remedies. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the High Court, under Article 226, has the power to condone delay even beyond the period prescribed for statutory delay condonation, citing the Supreme Court decision in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur. They contended that while statutory authorities might not condone such delays, the High Court's writ powers are broader. Respondent's Contention: The respondents did not explicitly record arguments. However, the judgment implies reliance on the statutory provisions and the principle that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for diligent availing of alternate remedies.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Article 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 17-02-2024 The petitioner is aggrieved with the cancellation of registration by Annexure-2 order passed on 23.06.2022. 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. Here, the order impugned in the appeal was dated 23.06.2022. An appeal was to be filed on or before 23.09. 2022 and if necessary 2/3 with a delay condonation application within one month thereafter. The appeal is said to have been filed only on 28.10.2023, after about one year and one month. 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 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.
3/3
The learned counsel specifically refers to the appellate order and the reference made to the decision in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur reported in 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (SC) to contend that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, High Court can condone the delay. It is argued, that though the statutory authorities would not be empowered to condone the delay, if there is a specific period provided for filing an appeal with delay; the delay could be condoned on satisfactory explanation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the contention, even after the period prescribed for condonation of delay.
We see that such a contention raised before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was rejected at paragraph no. 8 of the decision in Singh Enterprises (supra).
We find absolutely no reason to entertain the writ petition.
The writ petition would stand dismissed.
aditya/- (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) (Harish Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 23.02.2024. 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.