2022 (8) TMI 867 - HC - GST

Cancellation of registration certificate of the petitioner - time limitation - due date for filing of application for revocation of cancellation deed had expired - HELD THAT - This is an order passed by the first appellate authority under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act. As per subsection (1) of Section 107 of the CGST Act, limitation for filing appeal is three months from the date of communication of the order appealed against - Under subsection (4) of Section 107 of the CGST Act, the appellate authority may allow the appeal to be presented within a further period of one month, provided sufficient cause is shown by the appellant. Though the lower appellate authority may be right in holding that while it may allow filing of an appeal beyond the limitation of three months for a further period of one month, therefore, by extension of limitation beyond the extended period of one month delay beyond the extended period of one month cannot be condoned, we are of the view that such a stand taken by respondent No.1 may adversely affect the petitioner. This is more so because respondent No.2 had suo motu cancelled the GST registration of the petitioner on the ground of non-filing of returns and as GST Tribunal has not been constituted under Section 109 of the CGST Act, petitioner would be left without any remedy. The matter remanded back to the file of respondent No.2 to consider the grievance expressed by the petitioner against cancellation of GST registration and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law - petition disposed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Quashing of appellate order cancelling registration certificate under GST.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a partnership firm providing audio visual post production services, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking to quash the appellate order dated 27.07.2022, which affirmed the cancellation of its GST registration certificate by respondent No.5. The cancellation was due to the petitioner's failure to submit GST returns, despite replying to a show cause notice issued on 24.01.2022. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the only prayer made was for revocation of registration, not challenging the cancellation order, and the deadline for applying for revocation had passed. The issue raised in the petition was found to be covered by a previous decision of the court in another case. The court noted that no GST Tribunal had been constituted, affecting the petitioner's remedy, and remanded the matter back to respondent No.5 to reconsider and pass an appropriate order. The court emphasized that the petitioner must submit all returns as required by law during the reconsideration.

The court referred to the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically Section 107, which sets the time limit for filing appeals and allows for an extension under certain conditions. The court highlighted that while an appeal may be allowed beyond the initial three-month limit for a further month, any delay beyond this extended period cannot be condoned. Respondent No.1's stance on the limitation period was deemed potentially detrimental to the petitioner, especially since the GST Tribunal had not been established. Given the circumstances and the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration, the court deemed it appropriate to remand the matter for reconsideration to ensure justice is served. The court clarified that its decision to set aside the orders of respondent No.5 and respondent No.3 was not based on the merit of the case but rather on procedural grounds.

In conclusion, the court set aside the orders of respondent No.5 and respondent No.3, remanding the matter back to respondent No.5 for a fresh consideration of the petitioner's grievance against the cancellation of its GST registration. The court emphasized the importance of the petitioner complying with all statutory requirements during the reconsideration process. The court explicitly stated that it did not express any opinion on the merit of the case. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and any related pending miscellaneous petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.