M/S Abhishek Kumar Singh vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The reasoning was based on the availability of an alternate statutory remedy under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which the petitioner failed to diligently pursue within the stipulated time. The Court emphasized that the law favors the diligent, not the indolent. The petitioner's appeal was filed significantly beyond the permissible period for filing and for condonation of delay. Additionally, the Court noted that the petitioner did not avail of the Amnesty Scheme offered by the Government. The Court also found that the petitioner did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice, failed to file a reply to it, and did not controvert the allegation of wrongful claim of input tax credit, which formed the basis for the cancellation of registration. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Abhishek Kumar Singh, is aggrieved by the cancellation of their GST registration, as per an order dated 03.08.2023. The petitioner availed of an appellate remedy but filed the appeal with significant delay. Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, allows for an appeal within three months, with a further one-month window for delay condonation. The appeal was filed on 09.10.2024, long after the stipulated periods expired. The petitioner also failed to avail of an Amnesty Scheme introduced by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which permitted restoration of cancelled registrations upon payment of dues between 31.03.2023 and 31.08.2023. The petitioner did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice for cancellation, nor did they file a reply to it. The cancellation was also based on allegations of wrongful claim of input tax credit, which the petitioner did not controvert.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, despite the existence of an alternate statutory remedy and the petitioner's failure to diligently pursue it within the prescribed time limits, as contemplated under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner's primary argument, implicitly, is that the cancellation of registration and the subsequent dismissal of their appeal due to delay warrant High Court intervention. They likely contend that the delay was for reasons that should have been condoned or that the cancellation itself was erroneous. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue's position, as reflected in the court's reasoning, is that the petitioner was not diligent in availing the statutory remedy of appeal within the time prescribed by Section 107 of the BGST Act. Furthermore, the revenue would argue that the petitioner failed to avail of the Amnesty Scheme and did not contest the show-cause notice or the allegations of wrongful input tax credit claims, thereby forfeiting their right to seek extraordinary relief.