2023 (2) TMI 931 - HC - GST

Maintainability of appeal - appeal dismissed on the ground of being barred by time limitation - cancellation of registration of petitioner - HELD THAT - It is true that the appellant was not vigilant in filing the appeal before the appellate authority within the period of limitation. On a perusal of the order of cancellation of the registration, it is seen that the appellant had submitted his reply dated 3rd November, 2021 to the show cause notice dated 24 th October, 2021. However, the same order states that no reply to show cause notice has been submitted. This mistake is sought to be explained by the learned Government counsel stating that it is a system generated order. In any event, the appellant had the benefit of registration from 2017 onwards and the appellant admits that he could not remit the tax and that he is a small time dealer and due to financial constraints, could not remit the taxes and at present, the appellant is ready and willing to remit the taxes along with the interest for belated payment and prays that the registration may be restored. The order of cancellation of registration dated 24 th October, 2021 is set aside and the appellant is granted 10 days time from the date of receipt of the server copy of this judgment and order to pay the entire tax due together with interest and other charges, if any and if the same is complied with, the assessing authority shall restore the registration granted to the appellant in accordance with law - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against order dismissing appeal as time-barred under WBGST Act, proper application of mind by authority while cancelling registration, restoration of registration due to financial constraints.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an intra-Court appeal challenging the dismissal of an appeal petition as time-barred under the WBGST Act. The appellant had challenged the order cancelling the registration granted from 1st July, 2017. The Court noted the appellant's failure to file the appeal within the limitation period. It was observed that although the appellant had submitted a reply to the show cause notice, the order incorrectly stated that no reply was submitted, attributed to being a system-generated error. The Court emphasized the necessity of the proper application of mind by the authority in such cases, highlighting the lack of due consideration in the cancellation order. The appellant, a small-time dealer facing financial constraints, expressed readiness to pay the outstanding taxes with interest, seeking restoration of registration.

The Court, considering the unique circumstances, decided in favor of the appellant. The order cancelling the registration was set aside, granting the appellant 10 days to pay the entire tax due with interest and other charges. Compliance with this condition would lead to the restoration of registration by the assessing authority. No costs were awarded in the matter. The Court directed the prompt provision of a certified copy of the order upon fulfilling legal formalities. The judgment signifies the importance of due diligence in legal proceedings and the Court's discretion in granting reliefs based on individual circumstances.