M/S Mayur Trading vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Mayur Trading, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 01.03.2024, which rejected their appeal due to delay. The original order being appealed was dated 04.04.2023. The petitioner had a statutory appellate remedy under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, which mandates filing within three months, extendable by one month with a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The petitioner failed to avail this remedy within the stipulated time. The Court also noted that the petitioner did not avail a Government Amnesty Scheme (Circular No. 3 of 2023) for restoration of cancelled registrations. Furthermore, the petitioner did not file a reply to the show-cause notice for cancellation of registration.

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The reasoning was that a statutory appellate remedy was available to the petitioner under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act. However, the petitioner had not been diligent in availing this remedy, as the appeal was filed with gross delay, and the limitation period had expired long prior. The Court emphasized that the law favors diligent individuals and not those who are indolent. The Court also noted that the petitioner did not avail the Amnesty Scheme offered by the government and had not filed a reply to the show-cause notice for cancellation of registration. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not a substitute for a statutory remedy that has been lost due to the assessee's own lack of diligence.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a writ petition when a statutory appellate remedy is available but was not availed diligently by the petitioner within the prescribed limitation period, as per Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act? Petitioner's Argument: The judgment does not explicitly record any argument made by the petitioner. The Court's reasoning implies the petitioner sought to avail the appellate remedy despite the delay. Respondent's Argument: The respondent's implicit argument, as reflected in the Court's decision, is that the petitioner's failure to avail the statutory remedy within the time limit, coupled with the availability of such a remedy, bars the invocation of writ jurisdiction. They likely contended that the law favors diligent assessees and that the petitioner's inaction disentitles them to extraordinary relief.