The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his GST registration. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner failed to file an appeal within the statutory limit under Section 107 of the BGST Act despite an available appellate remedy, precluding the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3358 of 2024
======================================================
Abdul Bari S/o-Rafik Resident Of Village- Kakan Ward No- 12 P.O. Kakan Araria, P.S.- Jokihat District-Araria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md Tauqueer Azhar, 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 : 21-02-2024
The petitioner is aggrieved with the cancellation of registration, produced at Annexure-P/4 series, which order is dated 20.02.2023.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3358 of 2024 dt.21-02-2024 2/3
Tax Act, 2017 (for brevity ‘BGST Act’) 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. Here, the order impugned in the appeal was dated 20.02.2023. An appeal was to be filed on or before 20.05.2023 and, if necessary with a delay condonation application within one month thereafter. The appeal is said to have been filed only on 03.01.2024, after more than six months. 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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3358 of 2024 dt.21-02-2024 3/3
he had in fact commenced his business within six months of
registration.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
( Harish Kumar, J)
ranjan/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 23.02.2024 |
| Transmission Date | NA |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside the cancellation of GST registration given the existence of alternate remedies.
Whether the delay in filing the appeal under Section 107 of the BGST Act warrants the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Abdul Bari S/o-Rafik
The State of Bihar through the Commissioner, Department of State Taxes
Chief Justice
Harish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
