Nitish Kumar Jha vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Nitish Kumar Jha, is challenging the cancellation of his GST registration, which was effective from July 31, 2021. A show-cause notice was issued on July 19, 2021, to which the petitioner did not respond. The order of cancellation was passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Madhubani. The petitioner did not file an appeal against this order, nor did he avail of the condonation of delay provision within the Bihar Goods and Services Tax (BGST) Act. The petitioner also failed to utilize the benefit of the Supreme Court's suo motu order extending limitation periods due to the pandemic, which would have allowed filing an appeal until May 29, 2022, or even June 28, 2022, if the BGST Act's condonation provision was considered. Furthermore, the petitioner did not take advantage of the Amnesty Scheme introduced by Circular No. 3 of 2023, which allowed restoration of cancelled registrations between March 31, 2023, and August 31, 2023, upon payment of dues.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had failed to exhaust the statutory remedies available to him. Specifically, he did not file an appeal against the cancellation order within the prescribed time limit under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act, nor did he apply for condonation of delay. The Court noted that even considering the extension of limitation periods granted by the Supreme Court due to the pandemic, the petitioner had ample opportunity to file an appeal, which he did not. Furthermore, the petitioner also failed to avail the Amnesty Scheme offered by the government for restoration of cancelled registrations. The Court emphasized that the law favors the diligent and that the petitioner's delay and inaction were against him. Consequently, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has exhausted the available statutory remedies under the BGST Act, specifically the appellate remedy and the provision for condonation of delay, in challenging the cancellation of his GST registration? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief from the High Court in its writ jurisdiction, considering his failure to avail the statutory remedies and the lapse of significant time since the cancellation order? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner implicitly argues that the High Court should entertain his writ petition due to the circumstances, although the judgment does not explicitly record any arguments made by the petitioner's counsel. The petitioner's actions suggest a reliance on the High Court's intervention rather than pursuing the prescribed appellate route. Respondent's arguments: The State argued that the petitioner failed to avail the statutory appellate remedy provided under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act, which includes a provision for condonation of delay. They also highlighted that the petitioner did not utilize the benefit of the Supreme Court's order extending limitation periods due to the pandemic, nor did he avail the Amnesty Scheme. The State contended that the petitioner did not controvert the allegation of not filing returns for three consecutive periods.