Dismissed

M/s Rajesh Kumar Dubey v. The Union of India

Patna HC23 Apr 2024CWJC/5113/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an appellate order that rejected a delayed appeal against GST registration cancellation. The court held that the writ jurisdiction was not warranted as the petitioner was not diligent in availing statutory remedies and did not utilize the available Amnesty Scheme.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no recovery of registration or condonation of delay ordered.

M/s Rajesh Kumar Dubey Vs The Union of India — GST and Indirect Tax | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5113 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

M/s Rajesh Kumar Dubey through proprietor Rajesh Kumar Dubey, Male, aged about 43 years, Son of M.N. Dubey, resident of Magistrate Colony, Road No.- 3, Ashiana Nagar, District- Patna, Bihar.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Union of India through the Commissioner of Central Tax, Bihar, GST Bhawan, Beerchand Patel Path, Patna.

¶7

The Commissioner of Central Tax, Bihar, GST Bhawan, Beerchand Patel Path, Patna.

¶8

The Superintendent, CGST, Patna Central, Karpoori Sadan, Patna.

¶9

The Additional Commissioner of CGST and CX (Appeal), Central Revenue Building (Annexe), Second Floor, Birchand Patel Path, Patna.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr. K. N. Singh, ASG Mr. Anshuman Singh, Sr. SC, CGST & CX Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate Mr. Dewansh Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶12

Date : 23-04-2024

¶13

The writ petition is filed against the appellate order dated 09.01.2024 (Annexure-5) which was rejected on the ground of delay. The appeal was filed against Annexure-2, order of cancellation of registration dated 16.08.2019.

¶14

Admittedly, the appellate remedy was availed with gross delay.

¶15

Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.5113 of 2024 dt.23-04-2024 2/3

¶17

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.

¶18

Here, the order impugned in the appeal was dated 16.08.2019. An appeal was to be filed on or before 30.05.2022, 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 25.11.2023, after about one year five months from the date on which even the extended limitation period expired.

¶19

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

Patna High Court CWJC No.5113 of 2024 dt.23-04-2024 3/3

¶21

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 permitted to restore their registration on payment of all dues between 31.03.2023 to 30.06.2023. The petitioner did not avail of such remedy also.

¶22

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.

¶23

The writ petition would stand dismissed.

¶24

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

¶25

( Harish Kumar, J)

¶26

Anjani/-

¶27

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date	24.04.2024
Transmission Date

M/s Rajesh Kumar Dubey v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Rajesh Kumar Dubey v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Kumar Upmanyu Vs The Union of India

Takshila Educational Society, Vs The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

Dhiraj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Abhay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Dhirendra Kumar Shahi Vs The State of Bihar