Shelesh Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Shelesh Kumar, is challenging an order dated 01.03.2021 that cancelled his GST registration. The petitioner admits that an appellate remedy was available but was availed with significant delay. The order impugned in the appeal was dated 17.03.2021. While the Supreme Court's suo motu order extended limitation periods due to the pandemic, the appeal was filed on 15.10.2023, approximately one year and three months after the expiry of the extended limitation period. The petitioner does not dispute receiving the show-cause notice, which cited non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months as the reason for cancellation. The petitioner also does not claim to have filed returns during the said six-month period.

Held

The Court held that it should not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The reasoning was based on the fact that an alternative statutory remedy was available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the petitioner had availed this remedy with gross delay. Despite the extensions granted by the Supreme Court due to the pandemic, the appeal was filed significantly beyond the extended limitation period. The Court emphasized that the law favors the diligent and not the indolent, and the extraordinary jurisdiction is not a measure to be employed when alternate remedies exist and have not been pursued diligently. The Court also noted that the petitioner did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice for cancellation of registration due to non-filing of returns for six months, nor did the petitioner claim to have filed returns during that period. 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 to entertain a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy is available, and the petitioner has failed to avail it diligently within the prescribed time limits, considering the provisions of Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner's argument is implicitly that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and the High Court should intervene due to the circumstances, although no specific arguments are recorded regarding the merits of the cancellation order itself or the delay condonation. Respondent's Contention: The respondents' argument, as reflected in the court's reasoning, is that the petitioner has not been diligent in availing the alternate remedy within the stipulated time, and the law favors the diligent. They would likely argue that the delay is excessive and unexplainable, and the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court should not be exercised in such a case.