2024 (7) TMI 1596 - HC - GST

Apeal rejected on the ground of being delayed - cancellation of registration of petitioner - HELD THAT - 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. Here the order impugned in the appeal was dated 14.05.2023. An appeal was to be filed on or before 12.08.2023 and if necessary with a delay condonation application within one month thereafter i.e. on or before 11.09.2023. The appeal is said to have been filed only on 20.03.2024 after the limitation period expired. The petitioner does not have any case that the show-cause notice was not received by him. There are 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 - petition dismissed.

Summary

**Summary of the Judgement:**In the case before the Patna High Court, the petitioner challenged the cancellation of their registration under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act). The initial cancellation order was issued on 14.05.2023, and the petitioner filed an appeal, which was rejected due to being filed late on 20.03.2024. According to Section 107 of the BGST Act, appeals must be filed within three months, with a possible one-month extension for delay condonation if justified. The petitioner failed to meet these deadlines.Additionally, the petitioner did not utilize the Government's Amnesty Scheme, which allowed for registration restoration upon payment of dues between 31.03.2023 and 31.08.2023. The petitioner did not claim non-receipt of the show-cause notice.The court concluded that there was no basis to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, as the petitioner had alternate remedies and failed to act diligently. The principle emphasized was that "the law favors the diligent and not the indolent." Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.