Pinki Devi vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had not made out a case for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The primary reasoning was the availability of efficacious alternate remedies, namely, the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the GST Act. The Court emphasized that the petitioner had been grossly negligent in pursuing these remedies. Specifically, the appeal was filed significantly beyond the extended limitation period granted by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which provided relief due to the pandemic. The petitioner also failed to avail the Amnesty Scheme introduced by Circular No. 3 of 2023. The Court reiterated the principle that the law favors the diligent and not the indolent, and extraordinary jurisdiction is not to be employed where alternate remedies exist and have not been pursued diligently. The petitioner did not raise any grievance regarding the non-receipt of the show-cause notice. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Pinki Devi, is challenging an order dated 13.12.2021, which cancelled her GST registration. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court. The respondents are the State of Bihar and various tax authorities. The petitioner claims to have availed an appellate remedy with gross delay. The order of cancellation was dated 13.12.2021. The Supreme Court's extension of limitation due to the pandemic allowed filing appeals up to 30.05.2022, with a further one-month window for delay condonation. The petitioner filed their appeal only on 30.01.2024, approximately one year and eight months after the extended limitation period expired. The judgment also notes that Section 30 of the GST Act provides for revocation of cancellation within thirty days, and an Amnesty Scheme by Circular No. 3 of 2023 allowed restoration of registration between 31.03.2023 and 31.08.2023, neither of which the petitioner availed. The petitioner did not claim non-receipt of the show-cause notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has a valid ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, given the availability of alternate remedies and the petitioner's failure to diligently pursue them within the stipulated timeframes? Petitioner's Arguments: None recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue contended that the petitioner was aware of the cancellation order and had alternate remedies available, including appeal under Section 107 of the BGST Act and revocation under Section 30 of the GST Act. They further highlighted the petitioner's failure to avail the appellate remedy within the extended limitation period granted by the Supreme Court, and also failed to utilize the Amnesty Scheme offered by Circular No. 3 of 2023. The revenue argued that the law favors diligent assessees and not those who are indolent, and therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed.