Sandeep Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Sandeep Kumar, challenged an order dated 25.03.2022, passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Patna East Division, Patna, which cancelled his GST registration. The cancellation order referenced a show-cause notice dated 05.01.2022, and the petitioner did not dispute receiving it. The petitioner filed an appeal against the cancellation order on 29.11.2023, significantly beyond the statutory time limit. The Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, allows for an appeal within three months, with a further one-month condonation period for delay. The petitioner also failed to avail of the Amnesty Scheme introduced by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which permitted restoration of cancelled registrations upon payment of dues between 31.03.2023 and 31.08.2023.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. Regarding the first issue, the Court found that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 107 of the BGST Act, which permits filing an appeal within three months and seeking condonation of delay for a further month. The petitioner filed the appeal on 29.11.2023, approximately five months after the expiry of the limitation period, demonstrating gross delay. The Court emphasized that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not to be invoked when alternative remedies exist and the assessee has not been diligent. The law favors the diligent, not the indolent. Concerning the second issue, the Court found no reason to invoke writ jurisdiction due to the petitioner's failure to pursue available remedies diligently and within time. The Court also noted the petitioner's failure to avail the Amnesty Scheme, which provided a window for restoration. The Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the petitioner's failure to avail it within the prescribed time limits? 2. Whether the petitioner's delay in filing the appeal warrants invocation of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner relied on a previous case, M/s Kapildeo Prasad v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 15301 of 2023), where restoration of registration was directed upon an undertaking to pay dues. However, the Court noted this case did not lay down a specific dictum. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue contended that the petitioner had not availed the statutory remedy of appeal within the stipulated period, nor had he applied for condonation of delay. Furthermore, the petitioner did not utilize the Amnesty Scheme offered by the government. The revenue also highlighted that the writ petition did not provide reasons for the non-filing of returns, which was the likely cause for registration cancellation.