Patna High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging GST Registration Cancellation Due to Procedural Lapses

The petitioner, Ramesh Radav, was aggrieved with the cancellation of registration by an order passed on 20.01.2021.

It was contended by the petitioner's counsel that the show-cause notice for cancellation of registration dated 06.01.2021 directed appearance on 04.01.2021 and the order of cancellation of registration was passed on 20.01.2021.

The Court noted that there was an appellate remedy which the petitioner availed with gross delay.

Notably, Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (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.

The Court took into account the saving of limitation granted by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, In Re: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation, wherein, 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.

In the present case, the Court noted that the order impugned in the appeal was dated 20.01.2021, and an appeal was to be filed on or before 30.06.2022 as permitted by the Supreme Court and if necessary with a delay condonation application within one month thereafter.

The Court further noted that an appeal was filed only on 29.10.2023, after about one year and three months from the date on which even the extended limitation period expired.

The Court opined, “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.”

“True, there is an illegality in so far as the notice issued having shown a date prior to the date of the notice for hearing. However, the reply was directed to be submitted within seven days. The petitioner could have responded to the notice and asked for a further date which was not done by the petitioner.”

The Court noted that the petitioner did not have any case that the show- cause notice was not received by him.

Further, the Court said that it was also pertinent that the reason stated in the show-cause notice for cancellation of registration was that the petitioner had 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. The petitioner also did not file a reply to the show-cause notice,” the Court said dismissing the petition.

The order was delivered by a division bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Rajiv Roy.

Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.205 of 2024

Case Title: Ramesh Radav vs The Union of India and Ors

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 19