M/S Maa Janki Enterprises vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration (Annexure-1) was unsustainable because it did not provide any reasons for the cancellation. Furthermore, the order did not clearly indicate the alleged failure to file returns, even though the petitioner had not filed a reply to the show cause notice. The Court, referencing its previous decision in Purushottam Stores v. The State of Bihar & Ors, held that the Appellate Authority has a statutory duty under sub-sections (8), (9), (10), (11), and (12) of Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to examine the merits of the appeal and the grounds raised by the appellant, irrespective of the appellant's presence. Consequently, the Court set aside Annexure-1 conditionally, based on an undertaking by the petitioner. The petitioner undertook to pay all tax, interest, and penalty within one month after Deepawali holidays and to file the pending returns. If the undertaking is complied with, the registration will be restored; otherwise, it will stand cancelled as per Annexure-1. The issue of the Amnesty Scheme's applicability was implicitly bypassed by the Court's decision to address the merits of the cancellation order and the appellate dismissal.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Maa Janki Enterprises, is aggrieved by the cancellation of its GST registration, an order dated 10.07.2021 (Annexure-1). The petitioner filed an appeal against this cancellation, which was dismissed for delay on 17.09.2022 (Annexure-3). The revenue contended that an Amnesty Scheme was available between 31.03.2023 and 31.08.2023 for revocation of cancellation, and the petitioner's failure to avail this remedy precluded them from filing a writ petition, especially given the delay in their appeal. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration is sustainable in law, considering it lacks reasons and clear indication of default, and whether the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of delay, without examining the merits, contrary to statutory provisions? (Relates to principles of natural justice and Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017). Petitioner's arguments: The order of cancellation is unsustainable as it provides no reasons and does not clearly indicate any failure to file returns. The Appellate Authority failed in its statutory duty to examine the merits of the appeal, as held in previous judgments. Revenue's arguments: The petitioner should have availed the Amnesty Scheme for revocation of cancellation, which was available for a specific period. Having failed to do so, and given the delay in filing the appeal, a writ petition is not maintainable. The revenue did not explicitly argue on the merits of the cancellation order itself.