2021 (8) TMI 409 - HC - GST

Cancellation of registration of the petitioner - time limitation - Section 29 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 22 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT - The application for revocation of cancellation of registration has to be made before the same officer who cancelled the registration. However, as regards the period of 30 days within which the application was to be submitted by the petitioner, the amendment made to Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 dated 18.05.2021 would be helpful to the petitioner because it says that such application can be filed either within 30 days or within such time period as extended by the Additional Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be, in exercise of the powers provided under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the CGST Act. It is found that the period of limitation could be extended by any one of the aforementioned authorities. Since, in the present case, the amendment has been brought in the Rule 23 of the Rules of 2017 by notification dated 18.05.2021, the Commissioner who decided the appeal by order dated 19.02.2021, did not have the occasion to consider that aspect whether the period of limitation for filing application under Section 30 of the CGST Act, should be, in the present case, extended. Considering that the petitioner has bonafidely pursued the remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act against the order of revocation of cancellation of registration dated 03.12.2019 and the appeal remained pending for a period of about one year, we are persuaded now to dispose of the writ petition by requiring the proper officer to consider the application for revocation of cancellation of registration, if now filed within 15 days from today, and decide the same on merits within 30 days from the date of filing of such application. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to cancellation of registration under CGST Act, dismissal of appeal by Appellate Authority, remedy for revocation of cancellation, extension of period of limitation for filing application under Section 30 of CGST Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to challenge the cancellation of registration under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) invoking Section 29 of the Act read with Rule 22 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. An appeal was filed against the cancellation order before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant failed to file an application for revocation of cancellation within the prescribed time as required by Section 30 of the CGST Act. The Appellate Authority emphasized that the appellant should have sought revocation before the proper officer as mandated under the Act.

The Appellate Authority held that the appellant's request for revocation of cancellation of registration was not sustainable since the appellant did not follow the prescribed procedure under Section 30(1) of the CGST Act. The counsel for the petitioner requested the court to entertain a writ petition against the dismissal of the appeal. However, the respondent's counsel argued that the remedy for revocation of cancellation should have been sought before the proper officer within thirty days from the date of the cancellation order, as per Section 30 of the CGST Act.

The High Court noted that the application for revocation of cancellation of registration must be made before the same officer who canceled the registration, within the prescribed time limit. The Court highlighted an amendment to Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017, dated 18.05.2021, which allowed for an extension of the period of limitation by certain authorities. The Court found that since the amendment was made after the appeal was decided, the Commissioner did not have the opportunity to consider extending the limitation period in this case.

Considering the petitioner's genuine pursuit of the appeal against the cancellation of registration, which remained pending for about a year, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the proper officer to consider the application for revocation of cancellation if filed within 15 days and decide on the merits within 30 days from the date of filing. The Court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedures and timelines under the CGST Act for seeking revocation of cancellation of registration.