9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 1028 - HC - GSTCancellation of GST registration of petitioner - cancellation on the ground that appeals have been filed belatedly - HELD THAT - This Court is unable to accept to the request of the petitioner for condonation of the intervening delay as it is incumbent upon the petitioner to ensure statutory compliances within the timelines provided. This batch of writ petitions is thus disposed off. Each writ petition has been considered on the strength of the relevant facts that emanate in that matter - Dehors the conclusions arrived at in the case of the respective petitioners, it is made clear that all petitioners are at liberty to seek restoration of registration in accordance with law and learned Standing counsels would also accede to this position. Petitions dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to orders passed by Central/State Commercial Tax Authorities under the CGST/TNGST Acts. 2. Rejection of appeals by appellate authorities due to delayed filing. 3. Applicability of Supreme Court's extension of limitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 4. The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to condone delays beyond statutory limits. Detailed Analysis: 1. Challenge to Orders Passed by Tax Authorities: The petitioners challenged orders issued by the Central/State Commercial Tax Authorities under the CGST/TNGST Acts or appellate orders rejecting appeals due to delayed filing. The court noted that similar issues had been addressed in previous orders, where leniency was granted to petitioners under certain conditions. 2. Rejection of Appeals Due to Delayed Filing: The court examined whether delays in filing appeals could be condoned. The Supreme Court had extended the limitation period for filing statutory appeals due to the pandemic, with the last extension expiring on 29.05.2022. The court held that the benefit of restoration of registration could not be indefinitely available to petitioners and emphasized the statutory limits for filing appeals. 3. Applicability of Supreme Court's Extension of Limitation: The court acknowledged the Supreme Court's judgment in "In Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation," which extended the limitation period for filing appeals due to the pandemic. The court applied this extension to the cases at hand, but also noted that this benefit could not be extended indefinitely. 4. High Court's Jurisdiction Under Article 226: The court reiterated that while the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is wide, it should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the delay is due to personal, human, or medical reasons. The court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in "Assistant Commissioner (CT) Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited," which emphasized that the High Court should not entertain writ petitions challenging assessment orders beyond the statutory limitation period as a matter of course. Individual Cases Analysis: - W.P.No.25950 of 2022: Appeal rejected as time-barred by four days. The court restored the appeal to the appellate authority, noting the minor delay and lack of serious objection from the respondent. - W.P.No.26653 of 2022: Appeal delayed by 87 days due to business paralysis. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding the explanation insufficient. - W.P.No.27033 of 2022: Appeal delayed by 38 days with no justification. The court dismissed the writ petition. - W.P.No.28151 of 2022: Appeal delayed by 11 days due to COVID-19 related issues. The court restored the appeal to the appellate authority. - W.P.No.26088 of 2022: Appeal delayed by 2 days due to COVID-19 related issues. The court restored the appeal to the appellate authority. - W.P.No.14879 of 2022: Registration restored based on the respondent's non-contestation and compliance with tax dues. - W.P.No.18017 of 2022: Writ petition filed beyond the extended limitation period without explanation. The court dismissed the writ petition. - W.P.No.25666 of 2022: Challenge to cancellation order filed beyond the limitation period. The court upheld the validity of service through the common portal and dismissed the writ petition. - W.P.No.25637 of 2022: Similar to W.P.No.25666 of 2022, the court dismissed the writ petition. - W.P.No.27552 of 2022: Similar to W.P.No.25666 of 2022, the court dismissed the writ petition. - W.P.No.30081 of 2022: Appeal delayed by 31 days. The court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks. - W.P.No.30227 of 2022: Writ petition filed beyond the limitation period without sufficient justification. The court dismissed the writ petition. - W.P.No.27189 of 2022: Revocation application pending before the authority. The court directed the authority to pass an order on the application. - W.P.No.27759 of 2022: Similar to W.P.No.25666 of 2022, the court dismissed the writ petition. Conclusion: Each writ petition was considered based on its specific facts and circumstances. The court applied the principles from the Supreme Court's judgment in "Glaxo Smith Kline" and exercised discretion in condoning delays only in cases with credible explanations. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory limitations and provided directions for the restoration of appeals in cases with minor delays and acceptable justifications.
|
