9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 1498 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Cancellation of registration of petitioner - time limitation - 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. An appeal was to be filed on or before 30.03.2023 and if necessary with a delay condonation application within one month thereafter, i.e. on or before 29.04.2023. Hence, an appeal could have been filed on or before 29.04.2023, which provision was not availed by the petitioner herein - The petitioner has not availed such remedy and at this point of time, cannot seek to avail the appellate remedy for reason of the limitation period having expired long prior. The petitioner was not a registered dealer after cancellation and there was no monitoring of his activities by the Department in the intervening period. There is no way to ascertain as to whether there was any transaction carried out during the said period. There is also the fact that the petitioner has not availed of the appellate remedy nor the Amnesty Scheme which was made applicable. Petition dismissed.
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. The cancellation order was dated 30.12.2022, following a show-cause notice issued on 26.08.2022. The petitioner did not utilize the appellate remedy provided under Section 107 of the BGST Act, which allows for an appeal within three months and a delay condonation application within an additional month. The deadline for filing an appeal was 29.04.2023, which the petitioner missed.
Additionally, Section 30 of the GST Act allows for an application to revoke the cancellation within thirty days of the order. An Amnesty Scheme, outlined in Circular No. 3 of 2023, permitted restoration of registration upon payment of dues between 31.03.2023 and 31.08.2023, which the petitioner also did not utilize. The court noted that the petitioner was not a registered dealer after the cancellation, and there was no evidence of any transactions during the intervening period. The court emphasized that "the law favours the diligent and not the indolent," and dismissed the writ petition due to the petitioner's failure to act within the provided timeframes.
|
