Rahul Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Rahul Kumar, is challenging the cancellation of his GST registration by an order dated January 14, 2021, passed by the Additional Commissioner, GST & CX (Appeals). The petitioner contends that the proceedings are illegal because the show-cause notice for cancellation, dated December 29, 2020, directed appearance on December 24, 2020, which is a date prior to the notice itself. The petitioner admits to having an appellate remedy but availed it with significant delay. The appeal was filed on December 6, 2022, approximately five months after the extended limitation period, which was further extended by the Supreme Court's suo motu order regarding the COVID-19 pandemic.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. While acknowledging the illegality in the show-cause notice, the Court emphasized that the petitioner had an alternative appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the petitioner availed this remedy with gross delay, filing the appeal on December 6, 2022, which was significantly beyond the permissible period, even considering the condonation of delay granted by the Supreme Court due to the pandemic. The Court found no reason to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 when an alternate remedy exists and the petitioner has not been diligent in pursuing it. The Court also observed that the petitioner had not disputed the factual basis for cancellation, i.e., non-filing of returns for six continuous months, and that remanding the matter for a fresh show-cause notice would be a useless formality. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, given the availability of an alternate appellate remedy and the petitioner's failure to avail it diligently within the stipulated time? 2. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration is vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice due to a defective show-cause notice? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argues that the show-cause notice was fundamentally flawed as it indicated a hearing date prior to the date of the notice, rendering the entire proceeding illegal. He contends that this procedural illegality warrants intervention by the High Court. Respondent's Arguments: The respondents, represented by the Additional Solicitor General and Senior Standing Counsel, argue that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal. They further contend that the petitioner was grossly negligent in availing this remedy, filing the appeal long after the prescribed and extended limitation periods expired. They also point out that the petitioner did not raise the issue of the defective notice in his appeal and has not disputed the underlying reason for cancellation, which was non-filing of returns for six continuous months.