2023 (5) TMI 1017 - HC - GST

Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - Section 29 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 22(3) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT - An appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 107 of the said Act of 2017 is required to be filed within three months from the date on which the decision or order passed under the Act is communicated to the aggrieved person, such time can be extended under Sub-section (4) thereof, subject to the condition that the aggrieved person showing sufficient cause - The Appellate Authority since has the power to extend the time to file an appeal, the petitioners, for the ends of justice, are entitled to get an opportunity to pray for such extension. The order of the Appellate Authority dated August 30, 2022 for the aforesaid reason, is set aside - Application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Cancellation of GST registration of a partnership firm.
2. Appeal against the cancellation order rejected due to delay.
3. Power of the Appellate Authority to extend the time for filing an appeal.

Analysis:
The High Court of Calcutta addressed the issue of the cancellation of GST registration of a partnership firm by the Assistant Commissioner under the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner, a partner of the firm, filed an appeal against this cancellation order under Section 107 of the Act read with Rule 108 of the Rules. However, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal citing a delay in its submission, leading to the main contention in this case.

The Court highlighted that an appeal under Section 107 must be filed within three months from the date of communication of the decision, with provision for extension under Sub-section (4) upon showing sufficient cause. In this instance, the appeal was filed after the stipulated time without a request for an extension. The Court recognized the Appellate Authority's power to extend the appeal filing period and emphasized that the petitioners should have the opportunity to seek such an extension in the interest of justice.

Consequently, the Court set aside the Appellate Authority's order based on the delay and allowed the petitioners to apply for an extension within a week. It was clarified that the Court did not delve into the merits of the delay claim due to reasons beyond the petitioners' control. Moreover, as no affidavit-in-opposition was submitted, the allegations in the writ petition were deemed denied by the respondents.

The judgment concluded by disposing of the case with the specified terms and without any costs. Additionally, it directed the provision of an urgent certified copy of the order to the parties upon fulfilling all necessary formalities. This comprehensive analysis elucidates the legal intricacies involved in the judgment and the Court's meticulous consideration of the procedural and substantive aspects of the case.