Shailesh Kumar, A Proprietorship Firm vs. State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Shailesh Kumar, a proprietorship firm, is challenging an order dated 17.03.2021 that cancelled its GST registration. The petitioner acknowledges an appellate remedy but admits to availing it with gross delay. The impugned order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Khagaria. The reason for cancellation cited in the show-cause notice was the petitioner's failure to file returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner does not dispute receiving the show-cause notice or failing to file returns for the specified period. The appeal was filed on 06.06.2023, significantly after the expiry of the extended limitation period.

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The primary reason for this decision is the existence of an alternative appellate remedy under Section 107 of the BGST Act. The Court noted that the petitioner had availed this remedy with gross delay. Considering the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation periods due to the pandemic, the appeal should have been filed by 30.05.2022, with a further one-month window for delay condonation. However, the appeal was filed on 06.06.2023, almost a year after the extended limitation expired. The Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for availing alternative remedies diligently and that the law favors diligent individuals. Furthermore, the petitioner did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice or the fact that returns were not filed for six continuous months. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition when an alternative appellate remedy is available and has not been availed diligently within the stipulated time, particularly in light of the provisions of Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act) and the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 regarding extension of limitation due to the pandemic? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner implicitly argues for the exercise of writ jurisdiction by approaching the High Court, likely contending that the delay in filing the appeal was justifiable or that the cancellation order was erroneous. However, the judgment does not explicitly record the petitioner's arguments regarding the delay or the merits of the cancellation. Respondent's Argument: The respondent, represented by the State of Bihar, implicitly argues against entertaining the writ petition due to the availability of an alternative remedy and the petitioner's failure to pursue it diligently. They rely on the statutory provisions for appeal and the principles of law favoring diligent litigants.