Suman Devi (A Sole Proprietorship Firm) vs. The Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Suman Devi (A Sole Proprietorship Firm), is aggrieved by the cancellation of its GST registration, an order passed on January 28, 2020. The petitioner availed of the appellate remedy with significant delay. The order impugned in the appeal was dated January 28, 2020. While the statutory appeal period under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is three months with a further one-month condonation period, the Supreme Court's suo motu order in Re: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation extended the limitation period due to the pandemic. Consequently, an appeal could have been filed by June 30, 2022, with a further ninety days for condonation. However, the appeal was filed on November 5, 2023, approximately one year and five months after the extended limitation expired. The petitioner also did not avail of the Amnesty Scheme by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which allowed restoration of cancelled registrations.
Held
The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The reasoning was that an alternative remedy was available to the petitioner, and the petitioner had not been diligent in availing such a remedy within the stipulated time. The Court noted the significant delay in filing the appeal, even after considering the extension of limitation granted by the Supreme Court due to the pandemic. The law favors diligent individuals, not those who are indolent. Furthermore, the petitioner did not avail of the Amnesty Scheme offered by the Government, which could have provided a remedy for restoring cancelled registrations. The Court also noted that the petitioner did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice for cancellation of registration, which was issued for non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months, and the petitioner did not claim to have filed returns during that period. 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 when an alternative remedy is available and the petitioner has failed to diligently pursue it within the stipulated time, considering the gross delay in filing the appeal against the order dated January 28, 2020, and the impact of the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 regarding extension of limitation due to the pandemic? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner implicitly sought relief from the High Court due to the delay in filing the appeal, likely hoping for condonation or a direction to the appellate authority. Respondent's Contention: The respondents, through their counsel, would likely argue that the writ jurisdiction should not be exercised due to the availability of an alternative remedy (appeal) and the petitioner's failure to comply with the procedural timelines, including the extended ones granted by the Supreme Court. They would emphasize the petitioner's indolence.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Circular No. 3 of 2023
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 02-02-2024 The petitioner is aggrieved with the cancellation of registration by Annexure-2 order passed on 28.01.2020. 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 2/3 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 28.01.2020. An appeal was to be filed on or before 30.06.2022 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 05.11.2023, after about one year five 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.
Further, the Government had come out with an 3/3 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.
The writ petition would stand dismissed.
Sujit/- (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Rajiv Roy, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 06.02.2024 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.