2022 (12) TMI 518 - HC - GST

Cancellation of registration of petitioner - appeal rejected on the ground that the counsel for the petitioner on three dates has not appeared and pressed the appeal and in view of Section 107(9) of the Act of 2017 only three adjournments can be granted and thereafter the First Appellate Authority proceeded to pass an ex parte order rejecting the application - HELD THAT - This Court finds that by ex parte order the first appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as he has failed to appear before the authority on 6.4.2021, 24.9.2021 and 2.11.2021. Taking a lenient view, this Court directs the Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeal of the petitioner on merits after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and decide the same within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. This Court further directs that the petitioner's counsel shall remain present on the date fixed by the First Appellate Authority and shall argue the matter on merits. The writ petition stands disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Cancellation of registration under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
2. Rejection of application for revocation of cancellation of registration.
3. Appeal before the First Appellate Authority and subsequent dismissal of the appeal in an ex parte manner.
4. Interpretation of Section 107(9) of the Act of 2017.
5. Reference to a judgment of a coordinate Bench.
6. Direction for reconsideration of the appeal by the Appellate Authority.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, registered under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, received a show cause notice for cancellation of registration on 27th November, 2020, which led to the actual cancellation on 7.12.2020 by the Taxing Authority. An application for revocation of the cancellation was made but was rejected on 26.4.2021. The First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 17.11.2021 due to the petitioner's counsel not appearing on multiple dates, citing Section 107(9) of the Act which limits adjournments. The petitioner argued that the cancellation was based on bogus transactions under Section 74 of the Act, referencing a judgment of a coordinate Bench.

2. The Standing Counsel opposed the writ petition, highlighting that no grounds were presented before the First Appellate Authority, leading to the appeal's dismissal in the absence of the petitioner's counsel. The High Court, after hearing both sides and examining the records, noted the dismissal of the appeal in an ex parte manner due to the petitioner's failure to appear on specific dates.

3. The High Court, taking a lenient view, directed the Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeal on its merits after hearing the petitioner's counsel. The Court mandated the Appellate Authority to decide the matter within a month from the date of the order and instructed the petitioner's counsel to be present and argue the case on merits during the reconsideration.

4. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and reconsideration of the appeal by the Appellate Authority. The judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements in matters concerning the cancellation and revocation of registration under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.