Writ relief barred where statutory appeal, condonation, and restoration scheme were all left unused after cancellation of registration.

Where an efficacious statutory appeal against cancellation of GST registration exists, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be used to revive a time-barred challenge when the assessee has neither filed the appeal within limitation nor sought condonation within the permitted period. The article notes that the available restoration amnesty scheme for cancelled registrations was also not utilised, and the absence of filed returns or any explanation for prolonged inaction further weakened the case for discretionary relief. On those facts, the writ petition was held unfit for interference and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging cancellation of registration was liable to be entertained despite non-availing of the statutory appeal, expiry of limitation, and non-use of the amnesty scheme.

Analysis: The statutory scheme provided an appeal against cancellation of registration, together with a limited power of condonation under section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner did not file the appeal within limitation or seek condonation within the permissible period. The Court also noted that an amnesty scheme under Circular No. 3 of 2023 had been available for restoration of cancelled registrations on payment of dues, but that remedy was also not availed. In these circumstances, the petitioner could not bypass the expired statutory remedy and invoke writ jurisdiction after substantial delay. The absence of returns and the lack of any explanation for inaction reinforced the conclusion that discretionary relief was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not fit for interference and was rejected against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: Discretionary writ relief was declined because the petitioner failed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy and other available restoration within time.

Ratio Decidendi: When an efficacious statutory remedy exists and the litigant allows the limitation period to lapse without seeking timely condonation, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised to revive the lost remedy, especially where an available restoration scheme was also not utilised.

---