Patna High Court
Ramesh Radav vs The Union Of India on 11 January, 2024
Bench: Chief Justice, Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.205 of 2024
======================================================
Ramesh Radav Son of Ramcharitra Yadav, through it proprietor Ramesh
Yadav, Resident of Ward no. 8, Meghaul, PO and PS- Kumbhi, Meghaul,
District- Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Commissioner of Central GST, Patna.
2. Superintendent, Central GST, Begusarai.
3. Joint Commissioner (Appeals), CGST and CX (Appeals), Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N. Singh, ASG
Mr. Anshuman Singh, Sr. SG, CGST & CX
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 11-01-2024
The petitioner is aggrieved with the cancellation of
registration by Annexure-P/1 order passed on 20.01.2021. The
vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
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.
2. Admittedly, there is an appellate remedy which the
petitioner availed with gross delay.
3. Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax
Act, 2017 ("BGST Act" hereafter) permits an appeal to be filed
Patna High Court CWJC No.205 of 2024 dt.11-01-2024
within three months and also apply for delay condonation with
satisfactory reasons within a further period of one month. We
have to take into account the saving of limitation granted by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of
2020, In Re: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation. Therein,
due to the pandemic situation limitation was saved between
15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. It was also directed that an appeal
could be filed within ninety days from 01.03.2022. Here, the
order impugned in the appeal was dated 20.01.2021. 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. In the above circumstances, we find
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. The law favours the diligent and not the
indolent.
4. True, there is an illegality in so far as the notice
Patna High Court CWJC No.205 of 2024 dt.11-01-2024
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.
5. The writ petition would stand dismissed.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
( Rajiv Roy, J)
Anushka/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 15.01.2024
Transmission Date
