M/S Kundan Kumar (A Sole Proprietorship Firm) vs. The Union Of INDIA

CWJC/1485/2024HC PatnaGSTCNR BRHC01004719202417 February 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR,THE CHIEF JUSTICE-3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Kundan Kumar, a sole proprietorship firm, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration dated March 5, 2021. The cancellation order was passed after a show cause notice was issued and replied to, and a hearing was conducted. The petitioner did not avail the statutory appellate remedy against this order. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to utilize the Amnesty Scheme introduced by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which allowed restoration of cancelled registrations upon payment of dues between March 31, 2023, and August 31, 2023. The petitioner's registration was cancelled in 2021, and during the intervening period, the petitioner, not being a registered dealer, had no departmental monitoring, making it impossible to ascertain if any transactions occurred.

Held

The Court held that it would not exercise its writ jurisdiction to restore the petitioner's GST registration. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's failure to avail the statutory appellate remedy against the cancellation order dated March 5, 2021, and their subsequent failure to take advantage of the Amnesty Scheme offered by the government. The Court noted that the cancellation occurred in 2021, and the petitioner, not being a registered dealer during the intervening period, made it impossible to ascertain if any transactions had taken place. The significant delay and the non-utilization of available remedies weighed against the petitioner. Therefore, the Court declined to exercise its discretion and dismissed the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to restore a GST registration cancelled in 2021, given the petitioner's failure to avail statutory remedies and a subsequent Amnesty Scheme? (Question of law and fact, concerning the principles of alternative remedies and discretionary writ jurisdiction). Petitioner's argument: The petitioner relied on various High Court judgments directing restoration of cancelled registrations upon payment of entire taxes due within four weeks. The petitioner implicitly argued that these precedents should be applied to their case. Revenue's argument: The respondents (Union of India and State of Bihar authorities) did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's reasoning suggests an implicit argument based on the petitioner's failure to pursue available remedies, including the appellate process and the Amnesty Scheme, and the significant delay in challenging the cancellation.

Sections Cited

None explicitly mentioned in the provided text.

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.1485 of 2024 ====================================================== M/S Kundan Kumar (A Sole Proprietorship Firm) having its registered office at Ramdauli, Panch-Sitalpur, Kamalpur, Block Bidupur, Hajipur at Vaishali Bihar-844503 through its sole proprietor Mr. Kundan Kumar, aged about 37 year (M), S/o Mithilesh Kumar Singh. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, having its office at Room No. 46, North Block, P.O. and P.S. North Block, New Delhi-110001 2. The State of Bihar through its Commissioner, BGST, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. Superintendent CGST and CX, Hajipur Circle, Vaishali. 4. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Hajipur Circle, Vaishali. 5. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Hajipur Circle, Vaishali. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anurag Saurav, 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 : 17-02-2024 The petitioner is before this Court challenging the cancellation of registration dated 05.03.2021 at Annexure-P/2. A show cause notice was issued, which was replied to and after considering the said reply as also the submissions made at the time of hearing, the order of cancellation of registration was passed. An appeal is 2/3 provided from Annexure-P/2, which was also not availed of. 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 places reliance on various judgments of this Court, in which this Court had directed that if the entire taxes due were paid within four weeks, the cancelled registration would be restored. However, we see that here, agitated is a cancellation of registration of the year 2021. 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. We also notice that the petitioner has not availed of the appellate remedy nor the Amnesty Scheme which was made applicable.

The petitioner had not availed of the alternate remedy at the appropriate time and the delay stands against 3/3 the petitioner. Hence, we dismiss the writ petition; declining exercise of discretion.

aditya/- (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) (Harish Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 22.02.2024. 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.