M/S Rohit Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA

In present case, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 30.04.2026 communicated vide C. No. 465-68 dated 02.05.2026, passed by respondent no. 5 without grant of adequate opportunity of being heard in violation of 2/5 principle of natural justice. He further prayed for quashing the show cause notice dated 06.01.2021 for cancellation of GST registration and the ex-parte order dated 22.01.2021 whereby the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a registered person in the name of proprietor of “Rohit Kumar” since 13.10.2017 as a works contractor.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 06.01.2021, the petitioner was served with show cause notice under Rule 22(1) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017 for non- furnishing of return for a continuous period of six months and on 22.01.2021, petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled by non-speaking order in undue haste without application of mind and in violation of principle of natural justice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the consultant tried to file application for the revocation of the GST registration but on account crossing of timeline to file the application for revocation of GST registration, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority on 25.03.2026, which was accepted and personal hearing was fixed on 24.04.2026, but thereafter without application of mind and in violation of principle of natural justice, appeal was dismissed by 3/5 respondent no. 5 on 30.04.2026 on the ground of limitation.

Per contra, Sri Ram Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent department submits that the petitioner was served with the show cause notice dated 6.01.2021 and was required to submit its reply within 7 days’ time. The petitioner has not submitted its reply so as to claim the fact that date of personal hearing was fixed prior to issuance of notice. Petitioner has failed to raise the issue before the Adjudicating Authority and is raising before this Hon’ble Court.

He further submits that the petitioner, despite the service of notice, has not filed the return in GSTR-3B, compelling the concerned authority to pass the order for cancellation vide order dated 22.01.2021. The three months period for filing appeal in terms of Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 is up to 22.04.2021 without application for condonation of delay, but the petitioner has filed the appeal against the impugned order on 25.03.2026 through online portal. Even after consideration of the condonation request of the petitioner (if any) for further granting extension of one month, as per the provision, the time limit for filing of the appeal in this case is up to 22.05.2021, but the instant appeal has been filed only on 25.03.2026 through online which is almost 5 years 4/5 which cannot be condoned by the Appellate Authority and by this Court also.

Heard the parties. Upon due appreciation of the respective submission, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is covered by Judgment dated 14.07.2026 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6180 of 2026 (M.K. Traders Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors.). The relevant parts of paragraph 10- 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 are reproduced hereinbelow-

The Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, is a special Act and provision of Section 162 bars the juri iction of civil Court, save as provided in Section 117 and 118 of the Act to deal with or decide any question arising from or relating to anything done or purported to be done under this Act. Section 117 of the Act mandates the High Court to exercise its Appellate juri iction against the order passed by the State Benches of the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 109. Section 117(2) provides for filing of appeal to High Court writ in 180 days and the proviso empowers is to condone the delay after appreciation of sufficient cause for not filing it within such prescribed period. The provision of Section 118 relates with appeal to Hon’ble Supreme Court from any order passed by Principal Bench of the Appellate Tribunal.

Accordingly, provision of Section 162 bars the juri iction of civil Court in reference to Section 107 of the BGST Act and legislature in its wi om has restricted a limit of 30 days to Appellate Authority under Section 107(4), three months to Appellate Tribunal for filing appeal/45 days for filing memorandum of cross- objection under Section 112(6) and the High Court in exercise of its Appellate juri iction under Section 117(2) proviso of this BGST Act 2017, for condonation of delay in filing of an application before respective Forum.

Therefore, the condonation of delay by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India in filing of appeal under Section 107 of BGST Act 2017 in our opinion, will be against the legislative intent manifested in the provision of BGST Act 2017. It is true that High Court has wide juri iction under 5/5 Article 226 of constitution of India but does not mean that it can disregard the substantive provision of a Statute. Accordingly, we come to the conclusion that this Court can’t entertain the present writ application filed after expiry of prescribed time limit.

In present case, the petitioner was served with the show cause notice for cancellation of his registration on 06.01.2021 and on failure of the petitioner to reply to the show cause notice, the proper officer has cancelled the registration vide order dated 22.01.2021. The petitioner in its indolent approach has filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority after a delay of almost 5 years which in terms of the Judgment passed by this Court in the matter of M.K. Traders Vrs. State of Bihar and Ors. (Supra), the learned Appellate Authority as well this Hon’ble Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not empowered to condone.

Accordingly, the present writ application is not entertainable and is dismissed.