Brijesh Kumar Singh vs. 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 an alternate remedy was available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the BGST Act, which was not availed diligently within the stipulated time. The petitioner filed the appeal approximately eight months after the extended limitation period expired. Furthermore, the petitioner did not avail of the Amnesty Scheme offered by Circular No. 3 of 2023. The Court emphasized that the law favors the diligent and not the indolent, and writ jurisdiction is not to be employed where alternate remedies exist and have not been pursued in a timely manner. The petitioner also did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice or the reason for cancellation, which was non-filing of returns for six continuous months. The writ petition was dismissed on these grounds.

Facts

The petitioner, Brijesh Kumar Singh, is challenging an order dated 06.05.2023 that cancelled his GST registration. The petitioner admits to having an appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allows for filing an appeal within three months and a further one month for condonation of delay. The appeal should have been filed by 03.09.2023, but the petitioner filed it only on 26.04.2024, approximately eight months after the extended limitation expired. The petitioner also did not avail of the Amnesty Scheme introduced by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which permitted restoration of registration for dealers whose registrations were cancelled, provided dues were paid between 31.03.2023 and 31.08.2023. The petitioner does not claim non-receipt of the show-cause notice, which cited non-filing of returns for six continuous months as the reason for cancellation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a writ petition when an efficacious alternative remedy is available and has not been availed diligently within the stipulated time, particularly concerning the cancellation of GST registration under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner's argument is that the High Court should intervene due to the circumstances, implying a failure to provide adequate relief through the statutory appellate mechanism. The revenue's argument, as inferred from the court's reasoning, is that the petitioner has failed to pursue the available statutory remedies within the prescribed time limits, making the writ petition inappropriate. The revenue would likely rely on the principle that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and not a substitute for regular legal remedies when they are available and have been neglected.