9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 167 - HC - GSTCondonation of delay in filing appeal - Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - non-filing of monthly returns - HELD THAT - A careful perusal of the impugned orders brings to light that the date of communication of the cancellation order to the writ petitioner is 10.03.2022. Three months therefrom elapsed on 09.06.2022 i.e., the prescribed period qua Section 107 of CG ST Act elapsed on 09.06.2022. Condonable period of one month thereafter elapsed on 09.07.2022. The appeal was preferred by the writ petitioner only on 13.10.2022. Law is well settled that when there is a cap, Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied. As the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order however it is made clear that this writ Court is not expressing any view or opinion on the merits of the matter and it is also made clear that it is open to the writ petitioner to apply afresh for registration. Petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
- Cancellation of registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Appeal dismissal on the ground of limitation Analysis: 1. Cancellation of Registration: The petitioner's registration was canceled due to non-filing of monthly returns. The petitioner did not seek rectification but instead filed an appeal challenging the cancellation. The impugned order dated 10.03.2022 communicated the cancellation to the petitioner. The appeal was filed on 13.10.2022, well beyond the prescribed periods under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The court noted that the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority based on the grounds of limitation. 2. Limitation Act and Case Laws: The court referred to the Limitation Act and established legal principles. It highlighted that when there is a prescribed limitation period with a cap, Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied. Citing the case of Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Sagufa Ahmed Vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd., the court emphasized that condonation cannot go beyond the prescribed cap or belated period. These legal precedents were crucial in determining the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of limitation. 3. Judicial Decision: The court, after careful perusal of the impugned orders, found no grounds to interfere with the decision of the appellate authority to dismiss the appeal due to limitation. However, the court clarified that its decision did not express any opinion on the merits of the case. It also allowed the petitioner the option to apply afresh for registration, ensuring that the fresh application would be processed based on its own merits and in accordance with the law. 4. Disposition: The captioned writ petition and the writ miscellaneous petition were disposed of with the observation that the writ petitioner could apply afresh for registration. The court ordered no costs to be paid. The judgment concluded with the disposal of the petitions, maintaining the stance taken regarding the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of limitation.
|
