2022 (8) TMI 97 - HC - GST

Cancellation of petitioner's registration - rejection of petition on the ground of time limitation - date of the order impugned iss 11.09.2019 whereas the date of filing the appeal by the petitioner is 18.09.2021 - HELD THAT - Since the facts are not in dispute and they are self apparent from the perusal of the order of the appellate authority and the original authority and since the petitioner is not contesting the date of the original order, the petition is being disposed of, at this stage without calling for any counter affidavit. Once the Government exercised its powers and reached a satisfaction (that there were defects on the common portal with respect to service of orders) and, provided relaxation of limitation, by suspending the period of limitation with respect to orders passed up to 12 June, 2020 and placed the date of any order passed up to that date, to be 31.08.2020 (on deemed basis) and further since the Government Notification dated 29.08.2021 suspended the period of limitation to file revocation applications for the period 01.03.2020 to 31.08.2021, it may never have been said that such an application if filed by the petitioner within the extended period of limitation, on 18.09.2021, would have been beyond time - That being the intent of the Government to grant relaxation of limitation with respect to an order for cancellation of registration, it would defy plain logic to restrict that benefit to proceedings for revocation on such orders and to not extend the same to appeal proceedings. That construction if made, would give rise to an absurd situation. There would exist two dates of order cancelling a registration - one for the purpose of filing an application to revoke that order and another to file appeal there against. The appellate authority has clearly erred in rejecting the appeal as time barred. The order dated 31.03.2022 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the appellate authority to pass a fresh orders, strictly in accordance with law, treating the appeal filed by the petitioner to be within limitation - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order cancelling registration under the Uttar Pradesh Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 dismissed as time-barred by the first appellate authority.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition against the order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the first appellate authority, which rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.09.2021 cancelling the petitioner's registration under the Uttar Pradesh Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The appeal was dismissed as time-barred, considering the date of the order impugned therein as 11.09.2019, while the petitioner filed the appeal on 18.09.2021. The petition was entertained due to the absence of a constituted Tribunal.

The petitioner argued that even if the date of the order cancelling the registration is considered to be 11.09.2019, the appeal filed on 18.09.2021 was within the time limit. The petitioner relied on various orders and notifications to support the argument that the period of limitation to seek revocation of the cancellation order was in abeyance until a certain date, and this principle should apply to appeal proceedings as well.

The Standing Counsel contended that no benefit was granted concerning the filing of appeals, and thus, the period of limitation must be strictly construed. However, the Court noted that statutory remedies, whether through applications or appeals, must be real and available to citizens aggrieved by orders passed by statutory authorities.

The Court emphasized that the intent of the Government to grant relaxation of limitation with respect to orders for cancellation of registration should not be restricted to revocation applications only but should also extend to appeal proceedings. The relaxation of limitation was based on difficulties in service of orders during the implementation of the GST regime and later due to COVID circumstances. Therefore, the appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal as time-barred, and the Court set aside the order, remitting the matter for fresh orders to be passed in accordance with the law, treating the appeal as within the limitation period.