M/S. Pachtaki Infotech PVT. LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Pachtaki Infotech Pvt. Ltd., is challenging the cancellation of its GST registration, which was ordered on July 5, 2022. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order with significant delay. The order impugned in the appeal was dated July 5, 2022. According to Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, an appeal should have been filed by October 3, 2022, with a further one-month window for delay condonation. However, the petitioner filed their appeal only on December 6, 2023, well after the prescribed limitation periods. The petitioner also did not avail of an Amnesty Scheme introduced by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which allowed for the restoration of cancelled registrations upon payment of dues between March 31, 2023, and August 31, 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 of India. The reasoning was that an alternative appellate remedy was available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. However, the petitioner failed to avail this remedy diligently and within the stipulated time. The order for cancellation was dated July 5, 2022, and the appeal should have been filed by October 3, 2022, with a potential one-month extension for condonation of delay. The petitioner filed the appeal only on December 6, 2023, which was significantly beyond the limitation period. The Court emphasized that the law favors the diligent and not the indolent. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner did not avail of the Amnesty Scheme offered by the government via Circular No. 3 of 2023, which could have facilitated the restoration of their registration. The petitioner also did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice or the stated reason for cancellation, which was non-filing of returns for six months. Consequently, 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 entertain a writ petition when an alternative appellate remedy is available, and the petitioner has failed to diligently pursue it within the stipulated time frame, as per Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of registration and seeks relief from the High Court. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argues that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the BGST Act, which they have failed to avail within the prescribed limitation period. They also point out the availability of an Amnesty Scheme which was not utilized by the petitioner. The revenue contends that the law favors diligent assessees and not those who are indolent. The petitioner has not disputed receiving the show-cause notice or the reason for cancellation (non-filing of returns for six months).