9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 1509 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - petition dismissed only on the ground that the Petitioner did not avail the remedy under Section 30 of the CGST Act - cancellation of registration of petitioner - HELD THAT - Upon perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority, it appears, did not discuss the matter on merits. Only on the ground that the present Petitioner had an opportunity to comply with the provisions of the regulations / statute and the Petitioner failed to avail of the remedy under Section 30 of the CGST Act for revocation of cancellation of the registration, the Appellate Authority has failed to entertain the appeal. The Appellate Authority, if it came to the conclusion that the Petitioner ought to have filed an appeal before the same Authority for revocation, then ought to have accorded an opportunity to the Petitioner to file an Application. Considering the conspectus of the matter, we are inclined to accord an opportunity to the Petitioner to file an Application before the Authority under Section 30 of the CGST Act. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Appeal against cancellation of registration under CGST Act. 2. Failure to file an Application for revocation of cancellation. 3. Lack of discussion on merits by the Appellate Authority. 4. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 5. Opportunity for the Petitioner to file an Application under Section 30 of the CGST Act. Analysis: 1. The Petitioner's registration was cancelled, and the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority for not availing the remedy under Section 30 of the CGST Act. The Counsel argued that the appeal should have been entertained on merits despite the failure to file an Application for revocation of the cancellation. 2. The Appellate Authority did not delve into the merits of the case due to the Petitioner's failure to file an Application for revocation. The AGP contended that the Petitioner should have followed the proper procedure by filing an Application instead of an appeal, supporting the Authority's decision. 3. The Appellate Authority's order lacked a discussion on merits and focused on the Petitioner's failure to comply with the provisions of the statute. The Court noted that the Authority should have allowed the Petitioner to file an Application if it deemed necessary for revocation. 4. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned by the Appellate Authority, but no decision on merit was provided. The Court highlighted the timeline for filing an Application under Section 30 of the CGST Act and emphasized the need for expeditious decision-making. 5. In light of the circumstances, the Court granted the Petitioner an opportunity to file an Application under Section 30 of the CGST Act within 15 days. The Authority was instructed to consider the Application within the statutory limitation period and make a decision on merit promptly, ultimately disposing of the Writ Petition without costs.
|
