Saurav Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Saurav Kumar, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an order dated 22.03.2023, which cancelled his GST registration. The petitioner had availed of the appellate remedy but with significant delay. The order impugned was dated 22.03.2023, meaning an appeal should have been filed by 21.06.2023, with a further one-month window for condonation of delay. However, the appeal was filed only on 02.09.2023, approximately 2 months and 13 days after the extended limitation period expired. The Court noted that the petitioner did not avail of the Amnesty Scheme introduced by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which allowed restoration of registration for dealers whose registrations were cancelled, upon payment of dues between 31.03.2023 and 31.08.2023. The petitioner also did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice for cancellation, which cited non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months.
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 of appeal under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the petitioner's failure to diligently avail of this remedy within the stipulated time. The Court emphasized that the law favors the diligent and not the indolent. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner did not avail of the Amnesty Scheme by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which offered a chance to restore cancelled registrations. The petitioner also did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice for cancellation, which was issued due to non-filing of returns for six continuous months, nor did the petitioner claim to have filed returns during that period. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for availing statutory remedies diligently, especially when the petitioner has been indolent and has not pursued available schemes.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a writ petition when an alternate statutory remedy of appeal is available, and the petitioner has failed to diligently avail of it within the stipulated time, as per Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief despite not availing the Amnesty Scheme offered by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which provided an opportunity for restoration of cancelled registrations? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner's arguments are not explicitly recorded in the judgment. However, the filing of the writ petition implies a challenge to the cancellation order and the dismissal of the appeal due to delay. Respondent's Arguments: The respondents, represented by the Additional Solicitor General and Senior Standing Counsel, likely argued that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the availability of an effective alternate remedy under Section 107 of the BGST Act, and the petitioner's failure to comply with the prescribed timelines. They would also have highlighted the petitioner's inaction regarding the Amnesty Scheme and the valid grounds for cancellation mentioned in the show-cause notice.
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 : 13-02-2024 The petitioner is aggrieved with the cancellation of registration by Annexure-3 order passed on 22.03.2023. 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 2/3 period of one month. Here, the order impugned in the appeal was dated 22.03.2023. An appeal was to be filed on or before 21.06.2023 and if necessary with a delay condonation application within one month thereafter. The appeal is said to have been filed only on 02.09.2023, after about 02 months and 13 days 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 favors 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 canceled 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 3/3 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 writ petition would stand dismissed.
sharun/- (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Harish Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 15.02.2024 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.