Vikash Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Vikash Kumar, proprietor of B.N. Enterprises, is challenging the cancellation of his GST registration by an order dated 22.05.2023. He filed an appeal against this order, which was rejected on 20.04.2024 as being delayed. The order of cancellation was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Siwan, and the appeal was rejected by the Additional Commissioner, State Tax (Appeal), Saran. The petitioner did not avail of an Amnesty Scheme offered by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which allowed restoration of registration for dealers whose registrations were cancelled, provided dues were paid 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 six continuous months.
Held
The Court held that the appeal filed by the petitioner was significantly delayed. The order of cancellation was dated 22.05.2023. Under Section 107 of the BGST Act, an appeal should have been filed by 20.08.2023, or by 19.09.2023 if a delay condonation application was filed. The petitioner filed the appeal only on 13.04.2024. The Court found no reason to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, as the petitioner had not been diligent in availing the alternate remedies within the stipulated time. The Court emphasized that the law favors the diligent, not the indolent. The petitioner's reliance on Purushottam Stores was deemed inapplicable as the dismissal of the appeal was due to delay. The Court dismissed the writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of cancellation of registration was within the prescribed limitation period under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, given his failure to diligently avail of alternate remedies? Petitioner's arguments: 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 specific arguments from the petitioner regarding the delay or the merits of the cancellation, beyond citing this case). Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that the appeal was filed significantly beyond the statutory limitation period. Section 107 of the BGST Act allows filing an appeal within three months, with a further one-month condonation period for delay. The appeal was filed on 13.04.2024, whereas the order was dated 22.05.2023, making the appeal due by 20.08.2023, or 19.09.2023 with condonation. The revenue also highlighted the petitioner's failure to avail the Amnesty Scheme and the lack of diligence in pursuing alternate remedies.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Article 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 25-06-2024 The petitioner is aggrieved with the cancellation of registration by Annexure P-4 order passed on 22.05.2023. against which an appeal was filed which was rejected as delayed, on 20.04.2024 at Annexure P-6. 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 22.05.2023. An appeal was to be filed on or before 20.08.2023 and if 2/3 necessary with a delay condonation application within one month thereafter, i.e. on or before 19.09.2023. The appeal is said to have been filed only on 13.04.2024, 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.
The petitioner relies on Purushottam Stores vs. The State of Bihar & Ors; CWJC No. 4349 of 2023, which is not applicable since the dismissal of the appeal is, as a consequence of the delay occasioned.
In the above circumstances, we find no reason to 3/3 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 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.
Anushka/- (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Harish Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 26.06.2024 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.