2024 (10) TMI 666 - HC - GST

Condonation of delay in filing application - Dismissal of appeal on the ground of suppression of material facts - cancellation of GST registration - HELD THAT - Hon ble Supreme Court in Arunima Baruah 2007 (4) TMI 695 - SUPREME COURT observed that to enable the Court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction, the suppression must be of material fact and it has been further indicated that material fact would mean material for the purpose of determination of lis, the logical corollary whereof would be that whether the same was material for grant or denial of the relief. It appears that learned Single Judge was of the opinion that in case, the said fact was brought to the notice of the Court, the order dated 22.02.2024 ordering for the verification of premises by the Authorities would not have been passed. Though it is no doubt true that the above fact of a fresh registration was relevant in view of the order of verification passed by the learned Single Judge, the fact of said registration cannot be said to be material so as to affect the determination of the lis between the parties. The order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. The writ petition is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay Condonation Application
2. Dismissal of Writ Petition on Ground of Suppression of Material Facts

Delay Condonation Application:
The office reported the appeal as barred by 40 days. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, supported by an affidavit, was not contested by the respondent's counsel, leading to the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.

Dismissal of Writ Petition on Ground of Suppression of Material Facts:
The writ petition was filed against the cancellation of GST registration and an appellate order. The appellant failed to disclose that a new registration had been obtained before the appeal was decided. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of suppression of material facts, citing the appellant's failure to reveal the new registration, which led to a verification order. The appellant argued that the new registration was not material for the case's decision. The Supreme Court's precedent emphasized that the suppression must be of a material fact to disentitle the appellant from relief.

The Court noted that the effect of the new registration on the case's determination was not indicated by the Single Judge. While the fresh registration was relevant to the verification order, it was not material to affect the case's outcome. The Court found that the suppression of the new registration was not a material fact as per the Supreme Court's definition. Therefore, the order dismissing the writ petition was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a decision on merits by the Single Judge.