A writ petition challenging the cancellation of GST registration by the Union of India is been dismissed by the Patna High Court in its judgment.
The applicant, Ramesh Radav, was dissatisfied with the cancellation of registration by an order passed dated 20.01.2021.
Applicant’s counsel contended that the show-cause notice for cancellation of registration on 06.01.2021 directed appearance on 04.01.2021 and the order of cancellation of registration was passed dated 20.01.2021.
There was an appellate remedy that the applicant claimed with gross delay, the court noted.
Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act) allows a plea to be filed within 3 months and applies for late condonation with satisfactory reasons within one month.
The Court noted that 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 and 28.02.2022. It was demanded that a plea can be filed within 90 days from 01.03.2022.
In this case, the Court stated that the order impugned in the petition was on 20.01.2021, and a petition was to be filed on or before 30.06.2022 as authorized by the Supreme Court and if necessary with a delay condonation application within 1 month afterwards.
The Court remarked that a petition was filed only on 29.10.2023, after one year and three months from the date on which even the extended limitation period lapsed.
The Court said, “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 cited that the applicant does not have any case that the show-cause notice was not obtained via him.
Read Also:- Non-Functional GSTAT, Patna HC Fines GST Officer INR 5K for Illegal Recovery
The Court afterward said that it was also appropriate that the reason expressed in the SCN for cancellation of registration was that the applicant did not file returns for a continuous period of 6 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 expressed by dismissing the petition.
A division bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Rajiv Roy delivered the order.
| Case Title | Ramesh Radav vs The Union of India and Ors |
| Case Number | 205 of 2024 |
| Date | 11.01.2024 |
| For the Petitioner | Mrs. Archana Sinha, Advocate |
| Counsel For Respondent | Dr. K.N. Singh, ASG, Mr Anshuman Singh, Sr. SG, CGST & CX |
| Patna High Court | Read Order |
