Writ jurisdiction cannot replace a grossly delayed GST appeal where statutory remedies and revocation options were not used.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not treated as a substitute for a grossly delayed statutory appeal against GST registration cancellation. Section 107 of the Bihar GST Act allows appeal only within the prescribed limitation period, with a limited condonation window on sufficient cause; even after accounting for the Supreme Court's pandemic-related extension of limitation, the appeal was still filed long after expiry. The petitioner also did not dispute service of the show-cause notice, filed no reply, and did not use the available revocation remedy under the amnesty circular. On these facts, the writ petition was held not maintainable and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging cancellation of GST registration was maintainable when the statutory appeal was filed with gross delay and the petitioner had not availed the available remedy within time.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits an appeal within the prescribed period and a further limited period for condonation on sufficient cause. The period of limitation was also considered in light of the Supreme Court's extension of limitation during the pandemic. Even on that basis, the appeal was found to have been filed long after the extended period had expired. The petitioner had also not availed the revocation remedy under the amnesty circular, did not dispute service of the show-cause notice, and had not filed a reply to the notice. In these circumstances, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not treated as an appropriate substitute for the delayed statutory remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed.

---