M/S Sanjeev Kumar Sharma vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, is challenging the cancellation of its GST registration, an order passed on 09.02.2023. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order, but it was rejected on 14.03.2024 on the grounds of being filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The order for cancellation was dated 09.02.2023. Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, allows for an appeal within three months, with a further one-month period for delay condonation. The appeal was filed on 31.01.2024, significantly after the expiry of the statutory timelines. The petitioner also did not avail of an Amnesty Scheme offered by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which allowed restoration of registration for cancelled dealers upon payment of dues. The petitioner does not dispute receiving the show-cause notice for cancellation, which cited non-filing of returns for six continuous months.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's appeal against the cancellation of registration was filed significantly beyond the statutory limitation period. Section 107 of the BGST Act permits filing an appeal within three months from the date of the order, with an additional one month for delay condonation upon showing satisfactory reasons. The order of cancellation was dated 09.02.2023, meaning the appeal should have been filed by 10.05.2023, and with delay condonation, by 09.06.2023. However, the appeal was filed on 31.01.2024. The Court found no reason to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226, as alternate remedies were available and the petitioner had not been diligent in pursuing them within the stipulated time. The Court emphasized that the law favors the diligent, not the indolent. The petitioner also failed to avail of the Amnesty Scheme. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of cancellation of registration was within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and if not, whether the delay in filing the appeal was justifiable? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner's argument is implicitly that the rejection of their appeal as delayed was incorrect, suggesting a potential for condonation of delay or that the appeal was filed within a reasonable timeframe, though specific arguments regarding the delay are not detailed in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's position, as reflected in the appellate authority's decision, is that the appeal was filed beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 107 of the BGST Act, which allows for an appeal within three months and a further one month for condonation of delay with satisfactory reasons. The revenue relies on the fact that the appeal was filed on 31.01.2024, long after the expiry of the stipulated timelines.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
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 09.02.2023. against which an appeal was filed which was rejected as delayed, on 14.03.2024 at Annexure P-3. 2. 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 09.02.2023. 2/3 An appeal was to be filed on or before 10.05.2023 and if necessary with a delay condonation application within one month thereafter, i.e. on or before 09.06.2023. The appeal is said to have been filed only on 31.01.2024, after the limitation period expired.
Further, the Government had come out with an Amnesty Scheme by Circular No. 3 of 2023, by which the registered dealers, whose registrations were cancelled were permitted to restore their registration on payment of all dues between 31.03.2023 to 31.08.2023. The petitioner did not avail of such remedy also.
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 filed returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner does not have a case that he had in fact filed a return in the continuous period of six months.
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 3/3 diligent in availing such alternate 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.