Rohit Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Rohit Kumar, proprietor of M/S Utsav Traders, challenged an order dated 23.02.2023, which cancelled his GST registration. This order was preceded by a show-cause notice dated 09.11.2022, which the petitioner did not dispute receiving. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court on 06.02.2024, challenging the cancellation order. The petitioner had not availed of the statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allows for an appeal within three months and a further one month for condonation of delay. The appeal was filed on 02.09.2023, approximately six months after the limitation period expired. Furthermore, the petitioner did not avail of the Amnesty Scheme introduced by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which allowed restoration of cancelled registrations for dealers who paid their dues between 31.03.2023 and 31.08.2023.

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The primary reason for this decision was the availability of an alternative statutory remedy, namely the appeal under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the petitioner had failed to avail this remedy within the prescribed time limit of three months, nor did he seek condonation of delay within the further period of one month. The appeal was filed approximately six months after the expiry of the limitation period. The Court emphasized that the law favors diligent individuals and not those who are indolent in pursuing their remedies. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner also failed to take advantage of the Amnesty Scheme offered by the Government, which provided an opportunity for restoration of cancelled registrations. Since the petitioner had not been diligent in pursuing available remedies, the Court found no reason to entertain the writ petition. The Court did not decide on the merits of the cancellation order itself, as the procedural lapse was determinative.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy is available and has not been diligently availed by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner's failure to file an appeal within the prescribed time limit under Section 107 of the BGST Act, including the period for condonation of delay, bars him from seeking relief from the High Court? 3. Whether the petitioner's failure to avail of the Amnesty Scheme, which provided an opportunity to restore cancelled registrations, impacts his claim for relief? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought to challenge the cancellation of his GST registration. (No specific arguments regarding the merits of the cancellation or the delay were recorded in the judgment). Respondent's Contention: The respondents, through the Standing Counsel, implicitly argued that the writ petition should be dismissed due to the availability of an alternative remedy (appeal under Section 107 BGST Act) which was not availed within the stipulated time, and the non-utilization of the Amnesty Scheme.