2023 (5) TMI 127 - HC - GST

Condonation of delay in filing of appeal - Service of SCN - Petitioner was unaware of notice - Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - Non-filing of statutory returns within the periods stipulated - HELD THAT - The petitioner neither submitted any response nor appeared for a personal hearing that had been fixed in the aforesaid notice. Though there is a tentative statement of the petitioner that he had been unaware of the same, this Court has taken a view in MR. PANDIDORAI SETHUPATHI RAJA VERSUS THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX, CHENNAI 2022 (12) TMI 1028 - MADRAS HIGH COURT that service effected online in terms of Section 169(1)(d) of the Act, constitutes valid service. R2 thus proceeded to pass an order dated 10.01.2022 cancelling the registration of the petitioner, also uploaded on the same day in the official portal. The provisions of Section 107 of the Act deal with 'Appeal' and provide that an appeal be filed as against any order of the State Goods and Services Tax Act within a period of 90 days. There is a period of one month after the aforesaid period of 90 days, for which the authority may grant condonation, if convinced by the explanation set out by the assessee. The appeal of petitioner has been filed after a period of 6 months, over and above the statutory limitation of 90 30 days. The dismissal of the appeal by R1 is seen to be in order.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order by Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise under Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Act, 2017 - Cancellation of registration due to failure to file returns within stipulated periods - Appeal filed after statutory limitation period - Dismissal of appeal by appellate authority.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Private Limited Company engaged in Engineering services, challenged an order by the Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise/R1 under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Act, 2017, regarding the cancellation of registration due to failure to file returns within the stipulated periods. The petitioner admitted defaults in not effecting a change in the name of the authorized signatory in time, leading to non-filing of turnover returns under the Act.

The Assessing Authority issued a notice of cancellation of registration on 02.12.2021, which the petitioner did not respond to or attend the personal hearing. Despite claiming unawareness, the court held that online service under Section 169(1)(d) of the Act constituted valid service. Subsequently, the registration of the petitioner was cancelled on 10.01.2022, and the petitioner's request for revocation was rejected due to being made after the statutory period.

The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority on 18.08.2022, which was beyond the statutory limitation of 90 days for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Act. The Act allowed for a one-month extension for condonation, but the petitioner failed to provide a justifiable explanation for the delay of 6 months beyond the statutory limitation. Consequently, the dismissal of the appeal by the appellate authority was deemed appropriate due to the fatal delay in filing.

The Honorable Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth confirmed the impugned order, resulting in the dismissal of the Writ Petition without costs. The court upheld the decision based on the petitioner's failure to comply with statutory timelines and provide adequate justification for the delay in filing the appeal, leading to the rejection of the appeal by the appellate authority.