Shri Radhe Krishna Drug House vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that it was not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The Court noted that the cancellation of registration was based on non-furnishing of returns for six months, and the petitioner had availed the statutory remedy of appeal, which was rejected on the ground of limitation. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to file a final return under Section 45 of the GST Act, 2017, and to apply for fresh registration in accordance with law. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the reasoning implies that the rejection of the appeal on limitation was considered a valid procedural outcome, despite the petitioner's claims of procedural unfairness in the appellate stage.

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Radhe Krishna Drug House, a proprietorship firm, was granted GST registration on April 25, 2023. The petitioner received a show cause notice on February 6, 2024, proposing cancellation of registration due to non-filing of returns for six continuous months. The petitioner claims non-receipt of this notice as it was handled by their accountant and not sent to their email or address. Consequently, the Joint Commissioner of State Tax canceled the petitioner's GST registration on March 9, 2024. The petitioner appealed this order on December 31, 2024, before the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal). The appellate authority rejected the appeal at the admission stage on January 22, 2025, citing limitation, without a speaking order or personal hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Respondent No. 2) rejecting the petitioner's appeal at the admission stage on the ground of limitation, without providing a speaking order or personal hearing, is liable to be quashed under Section 29 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, violating principles of natural justice? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that the appeal was rejected on limitation without a speaking order and without granting an opportunity for a personal hearing, which violates the principles of natural justice. The petitioner claims they were unaware of the initial show cause notice due to issues with its service and are willing to file all pending returns and pay tax liabilities. They argue that the cancellation of registration prevents them from filing returns. Respondent's arguments: The State argues that the petitioner had adequate statutory remedies available, including revocation of cancellation and appeal. They maintain that the appellate authority rightly rejected the appeal on limitation. The State also points to the petitioner's further remedy of filing a final return under Section 45 of the GST Act, 2017.