Rakesh Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The primary reason was the petitioner's failure to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal provided under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. The Court emphasized that the CGST Act is both a procedural and substantive law, and aggrieved parties must avail the remedies provided therein within the prescribed limitation periods. The Court reasoned that ignorance of the law or reliance on an accountant does not absolve a person from complying with statutory provisions. Allowing a party to bypass statutory remedies due to their own omission would render the prescription of limitation periods otiose and lead to a flood of writ petitions, undermining the statutory framework. The right to appeal is a statutory right, not a common law or constitutional right, and if not availed within the stipulated time, the remedy is lost. Therefore, the petitioner could not be permitted to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution on the plea of being remediless when a statutory remedy existed but was not pursued.

Facts

The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of his GST registration by Respondent No. 3 via an order dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), which was based on a show cause notice dated 12.02.2025 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner also challenged an order dated 20.03.2026 (Annexure P-6) issued by Respondent No. 4 imposing a penalty under Section 73 without a mandatory show cause notice. The petitioner's counsel admitted that a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act was available but not exhausted. The petitioner's explanation for not filing the appeal was that he was not tech-savvy, relied on his accountant, and had inadvertently omitted to file nil returns for the period July 2024 to December 2024 due to having no sales, and thus did not access the GSTN portal to reply to the show cause notice or see the impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, having failed to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act within the prescribed limitation period, can invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order of cancellation of his GST registration? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that he was not a tech-savvy person and, due to a bonafide mistake of omitting to file nil returns and not accessing the GSTN portal, he lost the opportunity to file an appeal. He contended that he should not be left remediless and sought relief under Article 226. Respondents' contentions: The respondents, through their counsel, pointed out the availability of the statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court noted that Section 107(4) allows for an appeal within a further period of one month if sufficient cause is shown, but this period had also expired.