M/S Zaika Inn vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Zaika Inn, is challenging the cancellation of its GST registration, an order passed on April 21, 2023. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order but did so with significant delay. The relevant provision, Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, allows for an appeal within three months, with a further one-month period for delay condonation. The appeal was filed on September 30, 2023, well after the expiry of the statutory timelines. The petitioner also did not avail of an Amnesty Scheme introduced by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which permitted restoration of registration for cancelled dealers upon payment of dues during a specified period. The judgment notes that the petitioner does not dispute receiving the show-cause notice for cancellation and did not file a reply to it.

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The reasoning was that such jurisdiction is not to be employed where alternative remedies are available, and the assessee has not been diligent in availing them within the stipulated time. The Court emphasized that the law favors the diligent, not the indolent. The petitioner had an appellate remedy under Section 107 of the BGST Act, which allows for an appeal within three months and a further one-month period for delay condonation. The appeal was filed significantly beyond this period. Additionally, the petitioner failed to avail the Amnesty Scheme offered by the government. The Court also noted that the petitioner did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice and did not file a reply to it. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant relief to the petitioner, given the availability of an alternative appellate remedy under Section 107 of the BGST Act and the petitioner's failure to diligently pursue it within the stipulated timeframes. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of its registration and seeks intervention from the High Court. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argues that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the BGST Act. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to avail this remedy within the prescribed period and did not seek condonation of delay. The revenue also points out that the petitioner did not utilize the Amnesty Scheme and failed to file a reply to the show-cause notice, indicating a lack of diligence on the part of the petitioner.