2024 (8) TMI 1132 - HC - GST

Time limitation - Rejection of petitioner s appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - cancellation of petitioner s GST registration - HELD THAT - The petitioner has explained that the delay in availing the appellate remedies was on account of certain mitigating circumstances. One Sh. Vinay Parkash Goel, who was the father of one of the Directors and the husband of another Director of the petitioner company expired on 21.04.2023. The petitioner has been afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard in the proceedings relating to its application for revocation of the impugned cancellation order. And, it is apparent that the petitioner was remiss in not availing the same. However, it is noted that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to be heard at the threshold stage as the impugned SCN did not specify the date and time on which the personal hearing was to be scheduled. It is considered apposite that the petitioner may be granted one more opportunity to satisfy the proper officer that it was in existence at the material time and continues to be in existence - petitioner s application for revocation before the proper officer is restored - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Impugning order rejecting appeal under CGST Act/DGST Act against cancellation of GST registration.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order rejecting their appeal against the cancellation of their GST registration. The appellate authority found the appeal beyond the limitation period and dismissed it. The petitioner was aggrieved by the cancellation of their GST registration due to alleged non-functioning at the principal place of business.

The proper officer issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) directing the petitioner to show cause for non-functioning and suspended the GST registration. The petitioner did not respond to the SCN, leading to the retrospective cancellation of GST registration. An application for revocation was also rejected as the petitioner failed to appear before the officer.

The petitioner contended that the delay in availing appellate remedies was due to mitigating circumstances, such as a family bereavement. The court noted the lack of a specific date for personal hearing in the initial SCN. Considering the circumstances, the court granted the petitioner another opportunity to respond to the SCN and prove their existence within a week.

The court directed the proper officer to reconsider the matter after giving the petitioner a chance to be heard. The petition was disposed of with the restoration of the application for revocation, providing the petitioner with a fresh opportunity to present their case. The pending application was also disposed of accordingly.