Vimal Kumar vs. State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Vimal Kumar, is aggrieved by the order dated 27.12.2018, which cancelled his GST registration. The petitioner availed the appellate remedy with significant delay. The order impugned in the appeal was dated 27.12.2018. As per Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, an appeal should have been filed by 27.03.2019, with a further one-month window for delay condonation, making the last date 26.04.2019. However, the appeal was filed only on 28.11.2023. The petitioner also did not avail of the Amnesty Scheme introduced by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which allowed restoration of registration for cancelled dealers upon payment of dues between 31.03.2023 and 31.08.2023. The petitioner does not dispute receiving the show-cause notice for cancellation, which cited non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months.

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The reasoning was based on the availability of an alternate statutory remedy, which the petitioner failed to avail diligently within the stipulated time. The Court emphasized that the law favors the diligent and not the indolent. The petitioner's appeal was filed significantly beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 107 of the BGST Act, even with the permissible delay condonation period. Furthermore, the petitioner did not avail of the Amnesty Scheme offered by the government. The Court also noted that the petitioner did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice for cancellation of registration, which was issued for non-filing of returns for six continuous months, and did not claim to have filed returns during that period. Therefore, 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 grant relief to the petitioner, considering the availability of an alternate statutory remedy and the petitioner's failure to diligently pursue it within the prescribed time limits? 2. Whether the petitioner has established a valid ground for condoning the gross delay in filing the appeal against the order of cancellation of registration? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner's arguments are not explicitly recorded in the judgment. However, the context implies a plea for the High Court to intervene due to the delay in filing the appeal and potentially the circumstances surrounding the cancellation. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue's arguments are not explicitly detailed, but the judgment reflects their stance by highlighting the statutory limitations and the petitioner's inaction. The judgment emphasizes that the law favors diligent individuals and not those who are indolent, suggesting the revenue likely argued against entertaining a delayed petition.