Ramesh Radav Vs Union of India (Patna High Court)
Date: January 10, 2024
Subject Matter
Registration Cancellation: Petitioner's failure to contest the non-filing of returns weakened the case
Summary
The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of GST registration. The petitioner, Ramesh Radav, argued that the cancellation order was based on a show-cause notice with a discrepancy in dates and lack of filing of returns for a continuous period. The court highlighted the delay in appealing the cancellation order, emphasized the importance of diligence in availing alternative remedies, acknowledged an illegality in the show-cause notice, and emphasized the importance of timely responses to official communications. The petitioner's failure to contest the non-filing of returns weakened the case, and ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PATNA HIGH COURT
The petitioner is aggrieved with the cancellation of registration by Annexure-P/1 order passed on 20.01.2021. The vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is 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.
2. Admittedly, there is an appellate remedy which the petitioner availed with gross delay.
3. Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax 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. Here, the order impugned in the appeal was dated 20.01.2021. 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 29.10.2023, after about one year and three 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.
4. 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 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. The petitioner also did not file a reply to the show-cause notice.
5. The writ petition would stand dismissed.