M/S. Shubhankar Om Deo Construction PVT. LTD. vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Shubhankar Om Deo Construction Pvt. Ltd., is challenging the cancellation of its GST registration, which was ordered on September 24, 2021. The petitioner acknowledges an appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, but filed its appeal with significant delay. The Supreme Court's suo motu order in Re: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation extended limitation periods due to the pandemic. Despite these extensions, the petitioner filed its appeal on March 21, 2024, approximately one year and nine months after the expiry of the extended limitation period. Furthermore, the petitioner did not avail of an Amnesty Scheme introduced by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which allowed restoration of cancelled registrations upon payment of dues between March 31, 2023, and August 31, 2023.

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The reasoning was based on the principle that this jurisdiction is not to be employed when alternate remedies are available and the assessee has not been diligent in availing them within the stipulated time. The Court noted the petitioner's gross delay in filing the appeal, even after considering the extensions granted by the Supreme Court due to the pandemic (saving limitation from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, and allowing filing within 90 days from March 1, 2022). The appeal was filed on March 21, 2024, long after the extended deadline. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to utilize the Amnesty Scheme offered by Circular No. 3 of 2023. The Court reiterated that the law favors the diligent and not the indolent. The petitioner did not claim non-receipt of the show-cause notice, nor did it produce it before the Court. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a writ petition when an alternate appellate remedy is available, and the petitioner has failed to diligently pursue it within the stipulated timeframes, including extensions granted due to the pandemic and a subsequent Amnesty Scheme? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner's primary argument, though not explicitly detailed in the judgment, is implied by its approach of filing a writ petition instead of pursuing the delayed appeal. This suggests an expectation that the Court would overlook the procedural delays due to the circumstances. Respondent's Contention: The respondents, represented by the State of Bihar and its tax authorities, would likely argue that the petitioner has failed to exhaust the statutory remedies available. They would emphasize the petitioner's gross delay in filing the appeal, the expiry of the extended limitation period, and the non-utilization of the Amnesty Scheme, arguing that the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked in such cases where the law favors diligent assessees.