9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 753 - Commissioner - GSTCancellation of registration of petitioner - taxpayer neither attended personal hearing nor responded to the query raised by this office - Section 107 (1) of CGST Act, 2017 - appeal has been filed within the prescribed time- limit or not - whether or not the appeal filed against the order of cancellation to be decided? - HELD THAT - In the instant case the appeal has been filed by the appellant with the delay of 17 months 10 days from the normal period prescribed under Section 107 (1) of CGST Act, 2017. Delay in filing the appeal is condonable only for a further period of one month provided only in case of sufficient cause is shown by the appellant. There is no reason given by the appellant for acceptance of appeal beyond the normal period prescribed under Section 107 (1) of CGST Act, 2017. Thus, there are no option but to reject the appeal as time barred without going into the merits of case. The appeal is rejected as time barred - appeal disposed off.
Issues:
1. Timeliness of filing the appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. 2. Decision on the appeal against the cancellation of registration due to non-filing of returns. Analysis: Issue 1: Timeliness of filing the appeal The appeal was filed under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 by the appellant against the Order cancelling the GSTIN due to non-filing of returns for six months. The appellant filed the appeal after a delay of 17 months and 10 days from the normal period prescribed. The Appellate Authority examined the statutory provisions and found that the appeal can only be presented within a further period of one month if sufficient cause is shown. As the appellant failed to provide any reason for the delay, the appeal was rejected as time-barred without delving into the merits of the case. Issue 2: Decision on the appeal against cancellation of registration During the virtual personal hearing, the appellant's Authorized Representative submitted that all pending returns were filed and there were no government dues pending. However, the Appellate Authority emphasized that the main issues to be decided were whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit and whether the appeal against the cancellation should be considered. Despite the appellant's compliance with filing pending returns, the appeal was rejected solely on the grounds of being time-barred. In conclusion, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as time-barred, highlighting the importance of adhering to the statutory timelines set forth in the CGST Act, 2017. The decision was based on the lack of sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing the importance of timely compliance with legal provisions.
|
