Manish Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Manish Kumar, proprietor of Jay Ma Katyanya Builders Ltd., is challenging an order dated 03.08.2022 that cancelled his GST registration. The petitioner admits that an appellate remedy is available but admits to filing the appeal with gross delay. The order impugned in the appeal was dated 03.08.2022, meaning the appeal should have been filed by 03.11.2022, with a further one-month window for delay condonation. However, the appeal was filed on 09.10.2023, approximately ten months after the limitation period expired. The petitioner does not dispute receiving the show-cause notice, which cited non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months as the reason for cancellation. The petitioner also does not claim to have filed returns during that six-month period.

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The reasoning is based on the availability of an alternate statutory remedy under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court emphasized that the petitioner had failed to diligently avail this remedy within the stipulated time frame. The appeal was filed approximately ten months after the expiry of the limitation period, even considering the additional month for delay condonation. The Court noted that the law favors the diligent and not the indolent. Furthermore, the petitioner did not dispute receiving the show-cause notice or the reason for cancellation, which was the non-filing of returns for six continuous months, nor did the petitioner claim to have filed returns during that period. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant relief to the petitioner, considering the availability of an alternate statutory remedy and the petitioner's failure to avail it diligently within the prescribed time limits? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of registration and has approached the High Court. (No specific arguments regarding delay condonation or merits of cancellation are recorded in favor of the petitioner). Revenue's contention: The revenue, through the State of Bihar and its tax authorities, argues that an alternate appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is available. They highlight that the petitioner has not availed this remedy diligently, having filed the appeal with a delay of approximately ten months beyond the statutory period, including the condonation window. The revenue implicitly relies on the principle that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for diligent pursuit of statutory remedies.