M/S Engineered N Innovative Private Limited vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The primary reason for this decision was the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the BGST Act, which the petitioner had failed to pursue diligently within the prescribed time limits. The Court noted that the appeal was filed significantly beyond the statutory period for filing an appeal and for seeking condonation of delay. The Court respectfully disagreed with the Allahabad High Court's decision, stating that even if the Tribunal were not constituted, the statute provides a specific period for filing a delayed appeal (30 days for condonation application), and condonation beyond that statutory limit is not permissible. The Court emphasized that the law favors the diligent and not the indolent. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner did not avail of the Amnesty Scheme offered by the Government, which could have provided a remedy. The Court also noted that the petitioner did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice and had not filed a reply to it. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Engineered N Innovative Private Limited, is aggrieved by the cancellation of its GST registration, an order passed on January 19, 2023. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order, but it was significantly delayed. Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, allows for an appeal within three months, with an additional one-month period for delay condonation upon satisfactory reasons. The order being appealed was dated January 19, 2023, meaning the appeal should have been filed by April 18, 2023, and any delayed appeal with condonation by May 18, 2023. However, the petitioner filed the appeal only on December 22, 2023. The petitioner also did not avail of an Amnesty Scheme introduced by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which allowed restoration of cancelled registrations for dealers who paid their dues between March 31, 2023, and August 31, 2023. The petitioner did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice for cancellation, nor did it file a reply to it.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to condone the significant delay in filing the appeal against the order of cancellation of registration, despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the BGST Act. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order of cancellation of registration should be set aside, relying on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in a similar case (Engineered And Innovative Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) where a delay of 95 days was condoned due to the non-constitution of the GST Tribunal. The petitioner contended that the delay was satisfactorily explained. Respondent's Contention: The State argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the BGST Act, which it failed to avail diligently within the stipulated time. The State contended that the law favors diligent litigants and that the extraordinary jurisdiction should not be invoked when statutory remedies are available and have not been pursued within the prescribed periods. The State also highlighted that the petitioner did not avail of the Amnesty Scheme and did not file a reply to the show-cause notice.