Pintu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8298 of 2024 ====================================================== Pintu Kumar son of Kapildeo Yadav, resident of Jhajhapatti, near Durga Sthan, Ekhatha, District- Madhubani, Proprietor Dharmraj Traders, having its business place at Asha Ekhatha, District Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Cum Commissioner, Department of State Taxes, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Principal Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of State Taxes, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Jhanjharpur, District- Madhubani. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ratanakar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Government Pleader 7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 20-06-2024 The petitioner is before this Court challenging the cancellation of registration dated 27.12.2019 at Annexure-P/2, before which a show-cause notice was issued on 19.07.2019, which was not replied to. An appeal is provided from AnnexureP/2, which was also not availed of.

2. In the BGST Act, u/s 107(4) there is a provision for filing an appeal within three months of the order and a further provision of condonation of delay, if the appeal is filed delayed, within one month of expiry of limitation. The appeal ought to have been filed on or before 26.03.2020 or before 25.04.2020

Patna High Court CWJC No.8298 of 2024 dt.20-06-2024 2/3 with a delay condonation application.

3. The petitioner has not availed such remedy and at this point of time, cannot seek to avail the appellate remedy for reason of the limitation period having expired long prior.

4. We notice that the Hon'ble Supreme Court saved the limitation in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In Re (2021) 5 SCC

452. Therein, due to the pandemic situation limitation was saved between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. It was also directed that an appeal could be filed within ninety days from 01.03.2022. Hence, an appeal could have been filed on or before 29.05.2022, which provision was not availed by the petitioner herein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also declared that if a longer period than 90 days is provided in a Statute, then that longer period will apply. In the BGST Act, u/s 107(4) there is a provision for condonation of delay, if the appeal is filed delayed, within one month of expiry of limitation. Even if that be deemed to be applicable then the appeal ought to have been filed by 28.06.2022.

5. Further, the Government had come out with an Amnesty Scheme by Circular No. 3 of 2023 by which the registered dealers, whose registrations were cancelled, were

Patna High Court CWJC No.8298 of 2024 dt.20-06-2024 3/3 permitted to restore their registration, on payment of all dues, between 31.03.2023 to 31.08.2023. The petitioner did not avail of such remedy also.

6. The petitioner being not a registered dealer, there was no monitoring of his activities by the Department in the intervening period. There is no way to ascertain as to whether there was any transaction carried out during the said period. It is also a fact that the petitioner has neither availed of the appellate remedy nor the Amnesty Scheme which was made applicable. The petitioner also does not in the memorandum of writ petition controvert the allegation in the show cause notice that no returns were filed for the prescribed periods.

7. The law favours the diligent and not the indolent. The delay stands against the petitioner.

8. Hence, we dismiss the writ petition; declining exercise of discretion.

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) (Harish Kumar, J) shivank/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 20.06.2024.

Transmission Date NA