M/S Gopal Enterprises vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

M/s Gopal Enterprises, the petitioner, is challenging an order dated January 11, 2023, which cancelled its GST registration. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order with significant delay. The relevant period for filing the appeal was up to April 11, 2023, with a further one-month window for condonation of delay. However, the petitioner filed the appeal online on June 9, 2023, and in hard copy on June 20, 2023, approximately two months after the limitation period expired. The petitioner received the show-cause notice for cancellation, which cited non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner does not dispute receiving the notice or failing to file returns for the specified period.

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The reasoning was that an alternative appellate remedy was available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. However, the petitioner failed to diligently avail this remedy within the stipulated timeframes. The Court noted that the appeal was filed significantly beyond the permissible period, even with the provision for condonation of delay. The Court also found that the petitioner did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice or the fact of not filing returns for six continuous months. Unlike the case cited by the petitioner, the present case indicated that the reply was considered and the failure to furnish returns for six months was specifically noted. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain an appeal filed with gross delay, despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy? 2. Whether the cancellation of GST registration is vitiated by procedural irregularities, such as non-consideration of the petitioner's explanation or lack of clear indication of failure to file returns? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner relies on a previous High Court decision (CWJC No. 14777 of 2023) where a cancellation order was interfered with due to a lack of clear indication of failure to file returns or consideration of an explanation. This suggests the petitioner implicitly argues that the present cancellation order suffers from similar defects. Respondent's Arguments: The respondents, through the Additional Solicitor General and Senior Standing Counsel, would likely argue that the petitioner has not been diligent in availing the statutory remedy and that the law favors diligent assessees. They would also likely contend that the reasons for cancellation are valid and that the petitioner's explanation, if any, was considered.