2023 (3) TMI 1259 - HC - GST

Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - no personal notice served upon the petitioner prior to suspension and cancellation of the GST registration rather a notice was simply uploaded in the website of the department - non-consideration of Apex Court decision regarding time limitation in 2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER - violation of principles of natural justice (audi alterem partem) - HELD THAT - The order for cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner was issued on 11.11.2021 and against which the appeal under Section 107 was filed on 19.07.2022. It is apparent that the order for cancellation of GST registration was passed on 11.11.2021 and the order for revocation of cancellation was required to be filed within 30(thirty) days therefrom as per the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017. Both these periods fall within the period mentioned in the Apex Court s order dated 10.01.2022 2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER . Accordingly, it was incumbent on the Appellate Authority to take note of the Apex Court s order regarding Cognizance for extension of limitation and thereafter pass appropriate orders. Upon perusal of the order of the Appellate Authority, it is seen that there is no reference to the Apex Court s orders. There is no finding that as to whether according to the department, the assessee was excluded from the benefit of the order passed by the Apex Court or whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the order passed by the Apex Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 21/2022 2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER . As such, it is apparent that the authorities did not take into account the orders passed by the Apex Court regarding cognizance for extension of limitation and had accordingly failed to pass appropriate orders seeking revocation of cancellation of GST registration, in the appeal preferred by the petitioner against such order. There is another aspect required to be noticed. If the petitioner is not included within the GST regime, then any statutory dues that may be required to be deposited by the petitioner may not be deposited and which will not be in the interest of the revenue. Therefore, in order that the petitioner is required to comply with his statutory obligations of payment of taxes under the GST regime, it would be necessary for the departmental authorities to re-consider the prayer of the petitioner for revocation of his cancellation of GST registration keeping in view the orders passed by the Apex Court regarding extension of limitation. A writ Court is empowered to condone the delay of any statutory or quasi judicial authority. Such power is inherent in a Writ Court - reliance placed i the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-12 Vs- Pheroza Framroze and Company 2017 (5) TMI 436 - SUPREME COURT . The impugned order dated 11.11.2021 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 16.01.2023 are hereby interfered with and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the departmental authority to re-consider his prayer for revocation of cancellation of GST registration. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Impugning the cancellation of GST registration by the respondent.
2. Allegation of violation of natural justice and GST Act provisions.
3. Dismissal of appeal as time-barred.
4. Failure to consider the period of limitation extension by the Apex Court.
5. Request for revocation of GST registration cancellation.
6. Requirement to pay outstanding statutory dues for revocation.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenges the cancellation of GST registration by the respondent, which was done without prior notice to the petitioner. The petitioner, a business proprietor, asserts that the cancellation order was issued without proper communication and violated natural justice principles and GST Act provisions. The petitioner's livelihood depends on the GST registration, making the cancellation detrimental to the business.

2. The petitioner filed an appeal against the cancellation, which was dismissed as time-barred by the Appellate Authority. The appeal dismissal was based on the failure to file within the prescribed period due to lack of personal notice served on the petitioner. The petitioner argues that the notice was only uploaded on the department's website, leading to a delayed awareness of the cancellation.

3. The court notes that the period for filing the appeal falls within the time frame excluded by the Apex Court's order due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Appellate Authority did not consider this extension of limitation in its decision. The failure to acknowledge the Apex Court's order regarding the extension of limitation led to the dismissal of the appeal.

4. Considering the petitioner's statutory obligations under the GST regime, the court emphasizes the necessity for the departmental authorities to re-evaluate the revocation of the GST registration cancellation. The court asserts its power to intervene and set aside the impugned orders, directing the respondent to reconsider the petitioner's request for revocation in light of the Apex Court's extension of limitation.

5. The court directs the respondent to inform the petitioner of any outstanding statutory dues and mandates the petitioner to deposit them promptly upon notification. Upon payment of the dues, the respondent is instructed to revoke the cancellation of the GST registration, allowing the petitioner to continue business activities in compliance with the CGST Act.

6. In conclusion, the court interferes with the impugned orders, setting them aside and remanding the matter to the departmental authority for re-evaluation. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction for revocation upon payment of outstanding dues, ensuring compliance with statutory obligations under the GST regime.