The petitioner failed to effectively utilise the alternate remedies and displayed a lack of diligence by not applying for them.

In a recent ruling, the Patna High Court, while dismissing the petition challenging the GST registration cancellation, observed that the law always favours the one who is diligent and not the indolent or lazy ones. Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy observed that “There is no valid cause to invoke the extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since the petitioner failed to avail the statutory remedy or to seek restoration of his registration as per Circular No: 3/2023.  The law favours the diligent and not the indolent.” The court stated that the GST registrants have to file the GST returns ‘Nil’ if there is no business income. Get a Copy of Analysis of GST Returns (Interlinking of returns for compliance enhancement), Click here The GST registrant, Association of Otolaryngologists of Bihar, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The petitioner did not appeal the cancellation and also did not take advantage of the Government’s Amnesty Scheme outlined in Circular No. 3 of 2023. This scheme allowed registered dealers, whose registrations were cancelled, to restore their registration by paying all dues between March 31, 2023, and August 31, 2023. The cancellation in question dates back to 2022. During the intervening period, the petitioner’s activities were not monitored by the Department since they were not a registered dealer. Consequently, it was impossible to determine whether any transactions had occurred during this time. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner neither pursued the appellate remedy nor availed of the Amnesty Scheme. Get a Copy of Analysis of GST Returns (Interlinking of returns for compliance enhancement), Click here The petitioner contended in the writ petition that there was no taxable income during the six-month period in question, which is why returns were not furnished. However, the Court observed that if there was no business activity, the registered dealer was obligated to file a ‘Nil’ return. By using the phrase “The law favors the diligent and not the indolent,” the Court implied that alternative remedies were available to the petitioner, such as the appeal process or the Amnesty Scheme. The Court observed that the petitioner failed to effectively utilise these remedies and displayed a lack of diligence by not applying for them. The court dismissed the writ petition; declining exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.