Dinesh Kumar 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 that such jurisdiction is not meant to be employed when alternative remedies are available and the assessee has not been diligent in availing them within the stipulated time. The Court noted that the law favors the diligent and not the indolent. The petitioner had an appellate remedy under Section 107 of the BGST Act, which allows for an appeal within three months and a further one month for delay condonation with satisfactory reasons. The appeal was filed significantly beyond the extended limitation period. The petitioner did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice or present it to the Court. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for statutory remedies when the petitioner has failed to act diligently within the prescribed time limits.

Facts

The petitioner, Dinesh Kumar, is challenging an order of cancellation of his GST registration passed on December 9, 2023. The petitioner had an appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This section allows for an appeal within three months, with a further one-month period for delay condonation if satisfactory reasons are provided. The order was dated December 9, 2023, meaning the appeal should have been filed by March 8, 2024, and the delay condonation application by April 7, 2024. However, the appeal was filed on August 30, 2024, approximately five months after the extended limitation period expired. The petitioner has not claimed non-receipt of the show-cause notice, nor has he produced it before the Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a challenge to an order of cancellation of GST registration when an alternate statutory remedy of appeal is available, and the petitioner has failed to avail it within the prescribed limitation period. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, by filing this writ petition, implicitly seeks condonation of delay in filing the appeal and argues that the High Court's intervention is warranted. (The judgment does not explicitly detail the petitioner's arguments beyond seeking relief through the writ petition). Respondent's contention: The State, through its counsel, argues that the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked as an alternate remedy is available and the petitioner has been indolent in pursuing it. They emphasize that the law favors diligent litigants.