Md Saddam, (M/S Saddam Khan Motors) vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Md Saddam (M/s Saddam Khan Motors), is challenging the cancellation of his GST registration, which was ordered on 23.02.2023. He filed an appeal against this order, but it was rejected on 26.02.2024 as being filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The order of cancellation was passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Patna City East, and the appellate order rejecting the appeal was passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal), Patna East Division. The reason for cancellation was the petitioner's failure to file returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner did not avail of an Amnesty Scheme offered by the government for restoration of registration between 31.03.2023 and 31.08.2023. The petitioner does not dispute receiving the show-cause notice or failing to file returns for six months.

Held

The Court held that the appeal filed by the petitioner was indeed beyond the statutory limitation period. Section 107 of the BGST Act permits an appeal within three months, with a further one-month condonation period for delay. The order of cancellation was dated 23.02.2023, meaning the appeal should have been filed by 24.05.2023, and with condonation, by 23.06.2023. The appeal was filed on 26.02.2024, significantly after the expiry of these periods. The Court also noted that the petitioner did not avail of the Amnesty Scheme and did not dispute the reason for cancellation (non-filing of returns for six months). The Court found no reason to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, as it is not meant for situations where alternate remedies exist and the assessee has not been diligent in pursuing them. The law favors the diligent. The cited precedent, Purushottam Stores, was deemed not applicable as the dismissal of the appeal was due to delay. The Court therefore dismissed the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of cancellation of registration was maintainable, considering it was filed beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? 2. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant relief to the petitioner, given his failure to diligently pursue alternate remedies within the stipulated time? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner relied on the case of Purushottam Stores vs. The State of Bihar & Ors; CWJC No. 4349 of 2023. (The judgment does not record any other specific arguments from the petitioner regarding the delay or the merits of the cancellation). Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the appeal was filed after the expiry of the limitation period, and the petitioner had not availed of the Amnesty Scheme. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue beyond the procedural aspects of the appeal's delay.