The Patna High Court, while dismissing a writ petition challenging the cancellation of GST registration by Union of India observed that there was an appellate remedy which the petitioner availed with gross delay and the extraordinary jurisdiction is not to be exercised when there are alternate remedies available and the assessee has not been diligent in availing such alternate remedies within the stipulated time.
Brief Facts:
The present petition was filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved with the cancellation of the registration by an order passed on 20.01.2021, stating that the show-cause notice for cancellation of registration dated 06.01.2021 directed appearance on 04.01.2021 and the order of cancellation of registration was passed on 20.01.2021.
Observations of the Court:
The court first noted that there is an appellate remedy which the petitioner availed with gross delay and further referred to Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and stated that the same 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.
The court noted that an appeal was to be filed on or before 30.06.2022 as permitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and if necessary with a delay condonation application within one month thereafter. The appeal is said to have been filed only on 29.10.2023, after about one year and three months from the date on which even the extended limitation period expired and in these circumstances, there is no reason to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction 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 stipulated time and the law favours the diligent and not the indolent.
Further, the court noted that there is an illegality in so far as the notice issued having shown a date prior to the date of the notice for hearing. However, the reply was directed to be submitted within seven days. The petitioner could have responded to the notice and asked for a further date which was not done by the petitioner. The petitioner does not have any case that the show cause notice was not received by him. Further, it is also pertinent that the reason stated in the show-cause notice for cancellation of registration is that the petitioner has not filed returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner does not have a case that he had in fact filed a return in the continuous period of six months. The petitioner also did not file a reply to the show-cause notice.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Ramesh Radav vs The Union of India & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy
Case no.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.205 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mrs. Archana Sinha
Advocate for the Respondents: Dr K.N. Singh, ASG and Mr. Anshuman Singh
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
