M/S Adarsh Construction Bibhutipur Samastipur vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Adarsh Construction, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging the cancellation of its GST registration by an order dated 26.07.2021. The petitioner had an appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allows filing an appeal within three months and seeking condonation of delay for a further month. The Supreme Court's suo motu order in Re: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation (W.P.(C) No. 3 of 2020) extended limitation periods due to the pandemic. The order impugned in the appeal was dated 17.03.2021. The extended limitation period for filing the appeal, considering the Supreme Court's directions, would have expired on 30.06.2022. However, the petitioner filed the appeal only on 02.10.2023, approximately one year and three months after the extended limitation expired. The petitioner did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice, which cited non-filing of returns for six continuous months as the reason for cancellation.

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The reasoning was based on the principle that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for availing alternate remedies, especially when the petitioner has not been diligent in pursuing such remedies within the stipulated time. The Court noted that the petitioner had an appellate remedy under Section 107 of the BGST Act. While acknowledging the Supreme Court's directions for extension of limitation due to the pandemic, the Court found that the petitioner's appeal was filed significantly beyond the extended period. The petitioner had not demonstrated any valid reason for this substantial delay. Furthermore, the petitioner did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice for cancellation of registration, nor did it contend that it had filed returns for the continuous period of six months as required. The Court reiterated that the law favors the diligent, not the indolent. Consequently, 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 stipulated time, even considering the pandemic-related extensions? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through its counsel, likely sought to argue for the invocation of writ jurisdiction due to the gross delay in filing the appeal, possibly by highlighting extenuating circumstances or challenging the validity of the cancellation order itself. However, the judgment does not record specific arguments from the petitioner regarding the delay or the merits of the cancellation. Respondent's contention: The State, represented by the Commissioner of State Taxes and other tax authorities, would have argued that the writ petition is not maintainable as an efficacious alternative remedy exists and the petitioner has been indolent in pursuing it. They would emphasize the petitioner's failure to adhere to statutory timelines, even with the benefit of Supreme Court-granted extensions, and the lack of diligence in availing the appellate process.