Statutory appeal and delayed challenge barred writ relief against GST registration cancellation, while amnesty relief was also unavailable.

Writ jurisdiction was held inappropriate where an efficacious statutory appeal under the Bihar GST Act existed and the petitioner approached it after gross delay without due diligence; the petition was therefore not maintainable and no writ relief was warranted. Relief was also unavailable under the amnesty scheme for restoration of cancelled registrations because the petitioner did not avail that remedy within the stipulated period. The challenge to cancellation of registration accordingly failed and the writ petition was dismissed without interference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy and the petitioner's inordinate delay in availing it. (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to any relief in light of the amnesty scheme for restoration of cancelled registrations.

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

Analysis: Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides a time-bound appellate remedy with a limited period for delay condonation. The appeal was filed long after the prescribed period, and the petitioner had not acted with diligence. The availability of an alternate remedy, coupled with gross delay, made invocation of extraordinary writ jurisdiction inappropriate.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on this ground and no writ relief was warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to any relief in light of the amnesty scheme for restoration of cancelled registrations.

Analysis: An amnesty scheme was available for restoration of cancelled registrations upon payment of dues within the stipulated period, but the petitioner did not avail of that remedy.

Conclusion: No relief was available to the petitioner on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to cancellation of registration failed, and the writ petition was dismissed without interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not ordinarily be invoked where an efficacious statutory appeal exists and the litigant has failed to pursue the alternate remedy with due diligence within the prescribed time.

---