M/S J P Yadav vs. The State Of Bihar

CWJC/12744/2024HC PatnaGSTCNR BRHC01083884202428 August 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY,THE CHIEF JUSTICE-3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The petitioner, M/s J P Yadav, is challenging the cancellation of its GST registration, an order passed on February 12, 2024. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order, but it was rejected as being delayed on July 19, 2024. The petitioner received a show-cause notice for cancellation of registration, citing the reason that the business had not commenced within six months of registration. The petitioner does not dispute receiving the show-cause notice. The appeal was filed on June 28, 2024, which was beyond the prescribed time limits for filing an appeal and seeking delay condonation.

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The reasoning was that the petitioner had not been diligent in availing the alternate remedies available under the law. Specifically, the appeal was filed on June 28, 2024, which was beyond the statutory period. Section 107 of the BGST Act permits filing an appeal within three months, with a further one-month window for delay condonation upon showing satisfactory reasons. The order impugned was dated February 12, 2024, meaning the appeal should have been filed by May 12, 2024, and a delay condonation application by June 11, 2024. Since the petitioner failed to adhere to these timelines and did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice, the Court found no reason to interfere. The principle applied is that the law favors the diligent and not the indolent. The writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a writ petition when the petitioner has failed to diligently avail of the alternate statutory remedies available under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, within the prescribed time limits? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner implicitly argues that the rejection of their appeal as delayed warrants judicial intervention under Article 226, suggesting a potential procedural unfairness or a need for equitable consideration, though specific arguments regarding the merits of the delay condonation are not detailed. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the State's standing counsel, implicitly argues that the writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner was indolent and failed to pursue the statutory remedies within the stipulated periods, as provided under Section 107 of the BGST Act. The revenue relies on the principle that the law favors the diligent.

Sections Cited

Section 107

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12744 of 2024 ====================================================== M/S J P YADAV Registered address at- NA, Raj Kumar Gang, P.O.- Lalbagh, Darbhanga, Bihar- 846004, through its Partner namely, Ajit Kumar Yadav @ Ajit Yadav, aged about- 42 years, Male, Son of Late Jagdishwar Prasad Yadav, Resident of- C/o- Jyotsana Srivastva, 504 Tower 11, Bhagirathi Enclave, Medanta Hospital, Awadh Vihar Yojna, Lucknow, P.S.- S.P.G.I. (Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute), Lucknow, District- Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Additional Commissioner, State Tax (Appeal) Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga. 3. The Joint Commissioner State Tax, Darbhanga, Circle- 1, Darbhanga. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Darbhanga Circle- 1, Darbhanga. 5. The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Darbhanga Circle- 1, Darbhanga. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Standing Counsel (11) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 28-08-2024 The petitioner is aggrieved with the cancellation of registration by Annexure P-2 order passed on 12.02.2024. against which an appeal was filed which was rejected as delayed, on 19.07.2024 at Annexure P-4. 2/3

Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“BGST Act” hereafter) permits an appeal to be filed within three months and also apply for delay condonation with satisfactory reasons within a further period of one month. Here, the order impugned in the appeal was dated 12.02.2024. An appeal was to be filed on or before 12.05.2024 and if necessary with a delay condonation application within one month thereafter, i.e. on or before 11.06.2024. The appeal is said to have been filed only on 28.06.2024, after the limitation period expired.

The petitioner does not have any case that the show-cause notice was not received by him. Further, it is also pertinent that the reason stated in the show-cause notice for cancellation of registration is that the petitioner has not commenced business within six months from the date of registration.

In the above circumstances, we find no reason to invoke the extraordinary juri iction under Article 226, especially since it is not a measure to be employed where there are alternate remedies available and the assessee has not been diligent in availing such alternate 3/3 remedies within the stipulated time. The law favors the diligent and not the indolent.

The writ petition would stand dismissed.

aditya/- (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Partha Sarthy, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 29.08.2024. Transmission Date

Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.