The law favours the diligent and not the indolent

The Patna High Court has ruled that alternate remedies available under the GST ( Goods and Services Act) or the amnesty scheme introduced by the government should be utilised effectively before seeking relief under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Harish Kumar observed that “we find no reason to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, especially since it is not a measure to be employed where there are alternate remedies available and the assessee has not been diligent in availing such alternate remedies within the stipulated time. The law favours the diligent and not the indolent.” Get a copy of Reverse Charge Mechanism under GST, Click here The petitioner-GST registrant Bharti Enterprises’ GST registration was cancelled. The petitioner availed the appellate remedy after a gross delay.  The Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ( BGST Act)  allows an appeal to be filed within three months and also apply for delay condonation with satisfactory reasons within a further period of one month. The order in question was dated April 13, 2022. Therefore, the appeal should have been filed by July 30, 2022, with any delayed condonation application submitted within the subsequent month. However, the appeal was only filed on December 16, 2023, about one year and six months after even the extended deadline had expired. Get a copy of Reverse Charge Mechanism under GST, Click here Considering this delay and the existence of alternate remedies, the High Court found no justification for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court reiterated that such remedies are not meant to be a substitute for due diligence in utilising available procedures. The court noted that additionally, the government had introduced an Amnesty Scheme through Circular No. 3 of 2023, allowing dealers with cancelled registrations to restore their GST registration by paying all outstanding dues between March 31, 2023, and August 31, 2023. Bharti Enterprises did not take advantage of this scheme either. The petitioner did not contest that the show-cause notice for the registration cancellation was received. The notice cited the non-filing of returns for a continuous six-month period as the reason for cancellation. The petitioner did not demonstrate that returns were filed during this period, noted the bench. Accordingly the court dismissed the petitioner