M/S Nirmal Kumar, The Proprietor Nirmal Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Nirmal Kumar, is aggrieved by the cancellation of its GST registration, which was ordered on March 7, 2022. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order, but the appeal was rejected due to being delayed. The petitioner then approached the High Court. The Court noted that a Tribunal for the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act was not yet constituted. The Court also took into consideration Notification No. 03 of 2023 issued by the Central Government, which provides an extended period for registered persons to apply for revocation of cancellation if the cancellation was due to failure to file returns under Section 29(2)(b) or (c) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. The Court took note of Notification No. 03 of 2023, which allows registered persons whose GST registration was cancelled for failure to file returns under Section 29(2)(b) or (c) to apply for revocation of cancellation up to June 30, 2023. This is subject to the condition that returns are filed up to the effective date of cancellation, and all taxes, interest, penalties, and late fees related to such returns are paid. The Court's decision implies that the petitioner is eligible to avail this extended remedy, overriding the procedural delay in their earlier appeal. The ratio decidendi is that beneficial notifications aimed at rectifying non-compliance should be given effect, particularly when statutory remedies like a Tribunal are unavailable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to avail the extended period for revocation of GST registration cancellation as provided under Notification No. 03 of 2023, given that their appeal against the cancellation order was rejected as delayed? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner likely argued that the notification provides a beneficial remedy and should be applied to their case, especially in the absence of a functional Tribunal. They would have emphasized that the intent of the notification is to allow genuine taxpayers to rectify non-compliance and continue their business operations. Revenue's contention: The revenue likely argued that the petitioner failed to comply with the stipulated timelines for filing the appeal, and therefore, the benefit of the notification, which has its own conditions, should not be extended. They might have contended that the notification is not a blanket waiver of procedural delays.