Dismissed¶24

Suman Devi (a Sole Proprietorship Firm) v. The Union of India

Patna HC2 Feb 2024CWJC/1379/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court; CWJC No.1379 of 2024; decided 02-02-2024; GST/BGST registration cancellation; Section 107 Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 appeal limitation; delay condonation; Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 In Re: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation; Amnesty Scheme Circular No. 3 of 2023; alternate remedy doctrine; Article 226 writ jurisdiction; diligent vs indolent assessee; dismissal of writ petition.

What did the court decide?

There is no reason to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, as it is not a measure to be employed where alternate remedies are available and the assessee has not been diligent in availing them; the law favours the diligent and not the indolent. ¶19

Suman Devi (a Sole Proprietorship Firm) Vs The Union of… — GST and Indirect Tax | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 should be invoked to aid the petitioner whose registration was cancelled on 28.01.2020, given that the statutory appeal under Section 107 BGST Act was filed with gross delay beyond even the extended limitation and the Amnesty Scheme (Circular No. 3 of 2023) was not availed. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Taking into account the Supreme Court's pandemic limitation extension (limitation saved from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022; appeals permitted within ninety days from 01.03.2022), the appeal against the 28.01.2020 order was required to be filed on or before 30.06.2022, with a delay-condonation application within one month thereafter.

¶19

Key takeaways

The appeal was in fact filed only on 05.11.2023, i.e., after about one year five months from the date on which even the extended limitation period expired.ratio¶19
The petitioner also failed to avail the alternate remedy under the Government's Amnesty Scheme (Circular No. 3 of 2023), which permitted dealers whose registrations were cancelled to restore registration on payment of dues between 31.03.2023 and 31.08.2023.ratio¶22
The petitioner does not dispute receipt of the show-cause notice, nor claim to have filed any return during the continuous six-month period that constituted the stated ground of cancellation.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Article 226) seeking relief against cancellation of GST registration by order dated 28.01.2020 dismissed. Statutory appeal under Section 107, Bihar GST Act, 2017 was required to be filed on or before 30.06.2022, reckoning the Supreme Court's pandemic limitation extension (limitation saved 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022; appeals within ninety days from 01.03.2022), but was filed only on 05.11.2023 - about one year five months late. The Amnesty Scheme (Circular No. 3 of 2023) allowing restoration of cancelled registrations on payment of dues between 31.03.2023 and 31.08.2023 was also not availed. The show-cause notice was received and its ground - non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months - was uncontested. Held: extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not to be employed where alternate remedies exist and the assessee has not been diligent in availing them; the law favours the diligent and not the indolent. (Oral judgment by K. Vinod Chandran, CJ; bench included Rajiv Roy, J.)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1379 of 2024

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Suman Devi (A Sole Proprietorship Firm) having its registered address at Ms. Suman Devi W/o Shri Sarvindra Singh, Mohsinpur, Khusrupur, Patna Bihar 803202 through its sole proprietor Ms. Suman Devi, Female, aged about 48 W/o Shri Sarvindra Singh, Mohsinpur, Khusrupur, Patna, Bihar 803202

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, having its office at Room No.46, North Block, P.O. and P.S. North Block, New Delhi-110001.

¶7

Joint Commissioner (Appeals) of CGST and CX (Appeals), Patna, Central Revenue Building, Dist-Patna-800001.

¶8

Assistant Commissioner of CGST, Central Revenue Building, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist-Patna-800001.

¶9

Additional Commissioner /Superintendent CGST, Patna City East, P.S.Sultanganj, Dist-Patna.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate For the UOI : Dr. K.N. Singh, ASG Mr. Anshuman Singh, Sr. SC, CGST & CX

¶12

======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶14

Date : 02-02-2024

¶15

The petitioner is aggrieved with the cancellation of registration by Annexure-2 order passed on 28.01.2020.

¶16

Admittedly, there is an appellate remedy which the petitioner availed with gross delay.

¶17

Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“BGST Act” hereafter) permits an appeal to be filed

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.1379 of 2024 dt.02-02-2024 2/3

¶19

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 28.01.2020. 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 05.11.2023, after about one year five 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.

¶20

Further, the Government had come out with an

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.1379 of 2024 dt.02-02-2024 3/3

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

The writ petition would stand dismissed.

¶25

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

¶26

( Rajiv Roy, J)

¶27

Sujit/-

¶28

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date	06.02.2024
Transmission Date

Suman Devi (a Sole Proprietorship Firm) v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Devi (a Sole Proprietorship Firm) v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Vikas Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Pravin Kumar Giri Vs The State of Bihar

Pankaj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Bhuntun Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Shashi Bhushan Singh Vs The Election Commission of India