Writ relief against GST registration cancellation refused where statutory appeal was delayed and the cancellation record showed non-filing of returns.
A writ challenge to cancellation of GST registration was held not maintainable where the statutory appeal under the Bihar GST Act was filed beyond limitation and no sufficient ground for delay condonation was shown, so Article 226 relief was not ordinarily available despite an efficacious alternative remedy. The cancellation order was also left undisturbed because the record did not support the claim of non-receipt of the show-cause notice, and the cancellation was based on continuous non-filing of returns for six months with consideration of the reply recorded.
Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging cancellation of GST registration was maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy and gross delay in filing the appeal; (ii) Whether the cancellation order could be interfered with on the ground that the show-cause notice was not received or that the cancellation was unsupported by the record.
Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging cancellation of GST registration was maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy and gross delay in filing the appeal.
Analysis: The statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 had to be filed within the prescribed period, with a further limited period for delay condonation on satisfactory grounds. The appeal was filed well beyond that period. In such circumstances, extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not to be invoked where an efficacious alternative remedy existed and the assessee had not acted diligently within the stipulated time.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on this ground and no interference was warranted.
Issue (ii): Whether the cancellation order could be interfered with on the ground that the show-cause notice was not received or that the cancellation was unsupported by the record.
Analysis: The record showed no dispute regarding receipt of the show-cause notice. The stated ground for cancellation was continuous non-filing of returns for six months, and there was no case that returns had in fact been filed during that period. Unlike the relied-upon precedent, the present order specifically recorded consideration of the reply and the factual basis for cancellation.
Conclusion: The cancellation order did not call for interference.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to cancellation of GST registration failed, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory appellate remedy exists and is not pursued within limitation, the writ court should ordinarily not interfere under Article 226, especially when the cancellation of registration is supported by a recorded failure to file returns for the relevant period.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
