M/S Upendra Prasad Verma vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Upendra Prasad Verma, is challenging an order dated 09.01.2020 that cancelled its GST registration. The petitioner contends that the show-cause notice for cancellation, dated 30.12.2019, required appearance on 07.01.2020, and the cancellation order was issued shortly thereafter. The petitioner acknowledges an appellate remedy but admits to filing the appeal with significant delay. The appeal was filed on 24.11.2023, approximately one year and five months after the extended limitation period expired. The petitioner claims non-receipt of the show-cause notice, but it is noted that the reason for cancellation was non-filing of returns for six continuous months, a fact the petitioner does not dispute.

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This decision was based on the availability of an alternative appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which the petitioner had failed to diligently pursue. The Court noted that the appeal was filed with gross delay, significantly exceeding the extended limitation period granted by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020. The Court emphasized that the law favors diligent assessees, not indolent ones. Furthermore, the Court found that a remand would be a useless formality because the petitioner did not dispute the underlying reason for cancellation – the failure to file returns for a continuous period of six 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 efficacious alternative remedy of appeal is available, and the petitioner has failed to diligently avail it within the prescribed and extended limitation periods, as per Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? 2. Whether, in light of the petitioner's admission of not filing returns for a continuous period of six months, a remand for reconsideration of the cancellation order would serve any useful purpose, given the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 regarding the extension of limitation due to the pandemic? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argues that the show-cause notice was not received, and the cancellation order was passed hastily. They implicitly rely on the principle that due process requires proper notice. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue, through the State of Bihar and its officials, contends that an appellate remedy exists and the petitioner has been indolent in pursuing it. They highlight the petitioner's failure to file returns for six months as the basis for cancellation and argue that the delay in filing the appeal, even considering the Supreme Court's extension of limitation, is excessive and precludes the exercise of writ jurisdiction.