Dismissed¶23

M/s Upendra Prasad Verma v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC10 Jan 2024CWJC/335/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST registration cancellation; S. 107 Bihar GST Act appeal limitation; delay condonation; Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 COVID-19 limitation extension; Article 226 alternate remedy doctrine; diligence v indolence; useless formality remand; show-cause notice 30.12.2019; returns not filed six months; writ petition dismissed; Patna High Court CWJC No.335 of 2024; K. Vinod Chandran CJ; Rajiv Roy J.

What did the court decide?

The Court found no reason to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 because 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

M/s Upendra Prasad Verma Vs The State of Bihar — GST and Indirect Tax | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 should be invoked to restore the petitioner's cancelled GST registration when an appellate remedy under S. 107 BGST Act exists but was availed with gross delay. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Applying 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 09.01.2020 order was required to be filed on or before 30.06.2022, with a delay-condonation application within one month thereafter; the appeal filed on 24.11.2023 was about one year and five months late.

¶19

Key takeaways

Since the petitioner does not claim to have in fact filed a return during the continuous six-month period cited in the show-cause notice, a remand would be a useless formality.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ, oral judgment, with Rajiv Roy, J) dismissed CWJC No.335 of 2024 brought by a taxpayer aggrieved by cancellation of his registration vide Annexure-P/2 order of 09.01.2020, issued after a show-cause notice of 30.12.2019 citing non-filing of returns for a continuous six-month period. Although S. 107 BGST Act allows three months for appeal plus one month for delay condonation, and the Supreme Court's Suo Motu W.P.(C) No. 3 of 2020 saved limitation from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 and allowed appeals within ninety days from 01.03.2022 (deadline 30.06.2022), the petitioner appealed only on 24.11.2023. Holding that Article 226 jurisdiction is not to be exercised where alternate remedies exist and are not diligently availed — 'The law favours the diligent and not the indolent' — and that a remand would be a useless formality since the petitioner did not claim to have filed any return in the six-month period, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.335 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

M/s Upendra Prasad Verma having its office at 40, Kayasth Tola, Maheshamunda, Kahalgaon, Maheshamunda, Bhagalpur, Bihar, 813231 through its Authorized Representative Vikash Kumar Verma (Male), Aged about 34 years, S/o Upendra Prasad Verma, Residing at House No 203, Vill and PO Maheshamunda, Near Hanuman Mandir, P S - Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur, Bihar - 813231.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Commercial Tax Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Commissioner cum Secretary, Commercial Tax Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur, Bihar.

¶9

The Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Bhagalpur Circle, Bhagalpur, Bihar.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vijay Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP-7 ======================================================

¶12

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

¶13

Date : 10-01-2024

¶14

The petitioner is aggrieved with the cancellation of registration by Annexure-P/2 order passed on 09.01.2020. The vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the show-cause notice for cancellation of registration dated 30.12.2019 directed appearance on 07.01.2020 and the order of cancellation of registration was passed on 09.01.2020.

¶15

Admittedly, there is an appellate remedy which the

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.335 of 2024 dt.10-01-2024 2/3

¶17

petitioner availed with gross delay.

¶18

Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax

¶19

Act, 2017 (“BGST Act” hereafter) 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. 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 09.01.2020. 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 24.11.2023, after about one year and 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

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.335 of 2024 dt.10-01-2024 3/3

¶21

stipulated time. The law favours the diligent and not the indolent.

¶22

The petitioner has a case that the show-cause notice was not received by him. However, it is 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. A remand would be an useless formality.

¶23

The writ petition would stand dismissed.

¶24

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

¶25

( Rajiv Roy, J)

¶26

aditya/-

¶27

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date	12.01.2024.
Transmission Date

M/s Upendra Prasad Verma v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Upendra Prasad Verma v. The State of Bihar

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

Welkin Telecom Infra Pvt. Ltd., Vs The State of Bihar

Shashi Ray Vs The State of Bihar

Agrawal Commerce Career Vs The State of Bihar

M/s. Gurudev Perfumery Works Vs The Union of India

Sunil Kumar Vs The Union of India

M/s Bhartiya Rail Bijlee Company Limited Vs The Union of India