Statutory appellate remedy and notice irregularity did not justify writ interference with GST registration cancellation.

Where a statutory appellate remedy under the Bihar GST law was available, the writ court declined to intervene because the challenge to the registration cancellation was filed well beyond the extended limitation period and no due diligence was shown. The Court also held that a notice irregularity, such as mentioning a hearing date earlier than the notice date, did not justify interference where receipt of notice was undisputed, no reply was filed, and no factual error in the cancellation ground was demonstrated. The writ petition was therefore rejected and no relief was granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy and the delay in availing it; (ii) Whether the cancellation of registration order was liable to be interfered with on account of the notice mentioning a hearing date earlier than the date of notice.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy and the delay in availing it.

Analysis: Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides the appellate remedy and permits filing within the prescribed period with condonation of delay for sufficient cause. The period of limitation stood protected during the pandemic in terms of the directions governing extension of limitation. Even on that basis, the appeal against the cancellation order was filed long after the extended period had expired. In such circumstances, extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not warranted when an efficacious alternative remedy had not been pursued with due diligence.

Conclusion: The challenge was not entertained and the writ petitioner did not obtain relief.

Issue (ii): Whether the cancellation of registration order was liable to be interfered with on account of the notice mentioning a hearing date earlier than the date of notice.

Analysis: Although the notice mentioned an earlier hearing date, the petitioner was directed to file a reply within seven days and could have sought a fresh date. The petitioner did not dispute receipt of the notice, did not file a reply, and did not show that the stated ground of cancellation was factually incorrect. The irregularity in the notice was therefore not treated as sufficient to nullify the cancellation order in the writ proceedings.

Conclusion: No interference was called for on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected because the petitioner failed to avail the statutory remedy within time and did not establish a ground for exercise of writ jurisdiction against the cancellation order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory appellate remedy exists and is not pursued within the permissible period, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised absent a compelling ground, and a procedural irregularity in notice will not by itself warrant interference when no prejudice is shown and the party remains non-compliant.

---