M/S Nitya Enterprises vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Nitya Enterprises, is challenging the cancellation of its GST registration, an order passed on March 14, 2022. The petitioner had an appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. However, the appeal was filed on December 3, 2023, approximately one year and five months after the order was passed. The statutory period for filing an appeal was three months from the order date, with an additional month for delay condonation. 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 that an alternative appellate remedy was available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the BGST Act. However, the petitioner failed to avail this remedy diligently within the prescribed time limits. The appeal was filed with a significant delay of about one year and five months, far exceeding the permissible period for filing and seeking condonation of delay. The Court emphasized that the law favors the diligent and not the indolent. Furthermore, the petitioner also failed to avail of the Amnesty Scheme offered by the Government, which provided another opportunity for registration restoration. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of availability and non-diligent pursuit of alternative remedies.

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 alternative statutory remedy is available and has not been diligently pursued by the petitioner? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, aggrieved by the cancellation of registration, approached the High Court. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the petitioner regarding the invocation of writ jurisdiction. Respondent's contention: The State argued that the petitioner was not diligent in availing the alternate remedy within the stipulated time. The judgment also notes that the petitioner did not avail of the Amnesty Scheme, implying a lack of diligence in pursuing available remedies.