M/S Vaishnavi Enterprises vs. The State Of Bihar

CWJC/11172/2024HC PatnaGSTCNR BRHC01071475202429 July 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY,THE CHIEF JUSTICE-3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Vaishnavi Enterprises, is challenging the cancellation of its GST registration, an order passed on May 14, 2023. The petitioner filed an appeal against this cancellation, but it was rejected as delayed on March 20, 2024. The relevant period for filing the appeal under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was within three months from the order date, with a further one-month window for delay condonation. The appeal was filed significantly after these periods expired. The judgment also notes that the petitioner did not avail of an Amnesty Scheme offered by the government via Circular No. 3 of 2023, which allowed restoration of cancelled registrations upon payment of dues between March 31, 2023, and August 31, 2023. The petitioner has not disputed receiving the show-cause notice.

Held

The Court held that it would not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in this case. The reasoning was that alternate remedies were available to the petitioner, and they had not been diligent in availing these remedies within the stipulated time. Specifically, the appeal against the cancellation order was filed significantly beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Furthermore, the petitioner did not avail of the Amnesty Scheme offered by the government for restoration of cancelled registrations. The Court emphasized that the law favors the diligent and not the indolent. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided; the Court addressed the core issue of the petitioner's diligence in pursuing remedies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition when the petitioner has failed to diligently avail of alternate remedies within the stipulated timeframes, particularly concerning the rejection of an appeal as delayed? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of registration and the subsequent rejection of their appeal as delayed. They likely sought intervention from the High Court to set aside these orders and restore their registration. Revenue's contention: The revenue likely argued that the petitioner was not diligent in pursuing their remedies. The appeal was filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 107 of the BGST Act, and the petitioner also failed to utilize the Amnesty Scheme. Therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed as alternate remedies were available and not pursued within the prescribed time.

Sections Cited

Section 107

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11172 of 2024 ====================================================== M/s Vaishnavi Enterprises through its Proprietor Pradeep Kumar, Male, aged about 40 Years, Son of Visheshwar Saw a proprietorship Firm bearing GST IN/UIN No. 10AYTPK0110A1ZD having Registered Office Ram Krishna Colony, Bazar Samiti Road, Bahadurpur, Patna, Police Station, District - Patna, PIN- 800006. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner of State Tax-cum-Secretary, East Commissionary, Bihar Goods and Service Tax, Patna, District- Patna. 2. The Additional Commissioner of State Tax, East Commissionary (Zoo), Bihar Goods and Service Tax, Patna. 3. The Joint Commissoner of State Tax Bihar Goods and Service Tax, Patna. 4. The Assistant Commissioner, of State Tax, Bihar Goods and Service Tax, Patna City, District- Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Binod Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel (11) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 29-07-2024 The petitioner is aggrieved with the cancellation of registration by Annexure P/1 order passed on 14.05.2023, against which an appeal was filed which was rejected as delayed, on 20.03.2024 at Annexure P/2. 2. Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services 2/3 Tax Act, 2017 (“BGST Act” hereafter) permits an appeal to be filed within three months and also apply for delay condonation with satisfactory reasons within a further period of one month. Here, the order impugned in the appeal was dated 14.05.2023. An appeal was to be filed on or before 12.08.2023 and if necessary with a delay condonation application within one month thereafter, i.e. on or before 11.09.2023. The appeal is said to have been filed only on 20.03.2024, after the limitation period expired.

Further, the Government had come out with an Amnesty Scheme by Circular No. 3 of 2023, by which the registered dealers, whose registrations were cancelled were permitted to restore their registration on payment of all dues between 31.03.2023 to 31.08.2023. The petitioner did not avail of such remedy also.

The petitioner does not have any case that the show-cause notice was not received by him.

In the above circumstances, we find no reason to invoke the extraordinary juri iction under Article 226, especially since it is not a measure to be employed where there are alternate remedies available and the assessee has not been diligent in availing such alternate remedies within the 3/3 stipulated time. The law favors the diligent and not the indolent.

The writ petition would stand dismissed.

sharun/- (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Partha Sarthy, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 30.07.2024 Transmission Date

Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.