The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the cancellation of GST registration. The Court held that the petitioner was dilatory in availing the appellate remedy and invoked extraordinary jurisdiction is unavailable when alternate remedies lie unavailed within the stipulated time.
Writ petition stands dismissed.
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.394 of 2024
======================================================
Sunil Kumar Son of Jhotan Yadav Resident of Tiri, Ward No. 1, P.O Dhanchhoa, Saharasa, P.S.- Saurbazaar, District- Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prashant Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N. Singh, Additional Solicitor General
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 10-01-2024
The petitioner is aggrieved with the cancellation of registration by Annexure-2(B) order passed on 12.04.2021.
Act, 2017 (“BGST Act” hereafter) permits an appeal to be filed within three months and also apply for delay condonation with
Patna High Court CWJC No.394 of 2024 dt.10-01-2024 2/3
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 12.04.2021. 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 16.11.2023, 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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.394 of 2024 dt.10-01-2024 3/3
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.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
( Rajiv Roy, J)
Anushka/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 24.01.2024 Transmission Date
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 in view of the petitioner's gross delay in filing an appeal.
Whether the discretion to condone delay applies when the petitioner failed to file a return for a continuous period of six months.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sunil Kumar
The Union of India
K. Vinod Chandran
Rajiv Roy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
