M/S Radhika Packing And Printers vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Radhika Packing and Printers, is challenging an order dated 15.12.2020, which cancelled its GST registration. The petitioner admits that an appellate remedy was available but was availed with significant delay. The impugned order was dated 17.03.2021. The Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 extended limitation periods due to the pandemic. Consequently, the petitioner could have filed an appeal by 30.06.2022, with a further one-month window for delay condonation. However, the appeal was filed on 18.10.2023, approximately one year and three months after the extended limitation expired. The petitioner does not dispute receiving the show-cause notice for cancellation, which cited non-filing of returns for three consecutive tax periods.

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The reasoning was based on the availability of an alternate remedy under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the petitioner had availed this remedy with gross delay. It considered the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 regarding the extension of limitation due to the pandemic, which allowed for appeals to be filed by 30.06.2022, with a further ninety days for delay condonation from 01.03.2022. Despite these extensions, the petitioner filed the appeal on 18.10.2023, long after the extended period expired. The Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for availing alternate remedies diligently and that the law favors the diligent, not the indolent. The petitioner also did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice or the reason for cancellation (non-filing of returns for three consecutive periods). 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, despite the availability of an alternate appellate remedy, when the petitioner has demonstrably failed to avail such remedy within the prescribed and extended timelines, turning on the principles of availability of alternative remedies and diligence in pursuing them. Petitioner's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioner regarding the invocation of writ jurisdiction or the delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner's primary grievance is the cancellation of registration, and the writ petition was filed to seek redressal. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, would likely argue that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 107 of the BGST Act. They would emphasize the petitioner's gross delay in filing the appeal, even after considering the Supreme Court's directions for limitation extension due to the pandemic, and argue that the law favors diligent litigants.