Patna High Court
Pintu Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 20 June, 2024
Bench: Chief Justice, Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8298 of 2024
======================================================
Pintu Kumar son of Kapildeo Yadav, resident of Jhajhapatti, near Durga
Sthan, Ekhatha, District- Madhubani, Proprietor Dharmraj Traders, having its
business place at Asha Ekhatha, District Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Cum Commissioner,
Department of State Taxes, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of State Taxes,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Jhanjharpur, District- Madhubani.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ratanakar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader 7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 20-06-2024
The petitioner is before this Court challenging the
cancellation of registration dated 27.12.2019 at Annexure-P/2,
before which a show-cause notice was issued on 19.07.2019,
which was not replied to. An appeal is provided from Annexure-
P/2, which was also not availed of.
2. In the BGST Act, u/s 107(4) there is a provision for
filing an appeal within three months of the order and a further
provision of condonation of delay, if the appeal is filed delayed,
within one month of expiry of limitation. The appeal ought to
have been filed on or before 26.03.2020 or before 25.04.2020
Patna High Court CWJC No.8298 of 2024 dt.20-06-2024
2/3
with a delay condonation application.
3. The petitioner has not availed such remedy and at
this point of time, cannot seek to avail the appellate remedy for
reason of the limitation period having expired long prior.
4. We notice that the Hon'ble Supreme Court saved
the limitation in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020,
Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In Re (2021) 5 SCC
452. 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.
Hence, an appeal could have been filed on or before 29.05.2022,
which provision was not availed by the petitioner herein. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court also declared that if a longer period
than 90 days is provided in a Statute, then that longer period
will apply. In the BGST Act, u/s 107(4) there is a provision for
condonation of delay, if the appeal is filed delayed, within one
month of expiry of limitation. Even if that be deemed to be
applicable then the appeal ought to have been filed by
28.06.2022.
5
. 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.8298 of 2024 dt.20-06-2024
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.
6. The petitioner being not a registered dealer, there
was no monitoring of his activities by the Department in the
intervening period. There is no way to ascertain as to whether
there was any transaction carried out during the said period. It is
also a fact that the petitioner has neither availed of the appellate
remedy nor the Amnesty Scheme which was made applicable.
The petitioner also does not in the memorandum of writ petition
controvert the allegation in the show cause notice that no returns
were filed for the prescribed periods.
7. The law favours the diligent and not the indolent.
The delay stands against the petitioner.
8. Hence, we dismiss the writ petition; declining
exercise of discretion.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 20.06.2024.
Transmission Date NA
