M/S D.K. Jamuar And Co. vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s D.K. Jamuar and Co., is aggrieved by an order dated 13.07.2021 that cancelled its GST registration. The petitioner acknowledges an appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allows for an appeal within three months and a further one month for delay condonation with satisfactory reasons. The Supreme Court's suo motu order in Re: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation extended limitations due to the pandemic until 28.02.2022, allowing appeals to be filed within ninety days from 01.03.2022. Consequently, the petitioner could have filed an appeal by 30.05.2022. However, the appeal was filed on 29.04.2024, approximately one year and eleven months after the extended limitation period expired. The petitioner also failed to avail of an Amnesty Scheme offered by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which permitted restoration of cancelled registrations.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. The primary reason is the existence of an alternative appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the petitioner availed of this remedy with gross delay, filing the appeal on 29.04.2024, which was approximately one year and eleven months after the extended limitation period expired on 30.05.2022. This extended period was granted by the Supreme Court's suo motu order concerning the pandemic. The Court also highlighted the petitioner's failure to utilize the Amnesty Scheme offered by Circular No. 3 of 2023. The Court reasoned that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked when alternative remedies are available and the assessee has not been diligent in pursuing them. The judgment explicitly states that the law favors the diligent and not the indolent. The petitioner did not claim non-receipt of the show-cause notice, nor did they produce it before the Court. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable given the existence of an alternative appellate remedy and the petitioner's failure to avail it diligently within the prescribed and extended timelines. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner is before the High Court, implying a challenge to the order of cancellation. While the judgment does not explicitly record the petitioner's arguments regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the merits of the cancellation itself, it is implied they are seeking relief from the High Court. The petitioner's counsel appeared, suggesting an attempt to present their case. Respondent's argument: The respondent, represented by the Standing Counsel, would likely argue that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy (appeal) and the petitioner's gross delay and lack of diligence in pursuing it. They would emphasize the petitioner's failure to comply with statutory timelines and the condonation period, as well as the non-utilization of the Amnesty Scheme. The respondent would rely on the principle that the law favors the diligent.