2022 (6) TMI 463 - HC - GST

Cancellation of registration of petitioner - application of revocation filed beyond prescribed time - invocation of extended period of limitation - Section 30 of the CGST Act - erroneous reading of N/N. 34 of 2021 dated 29.08.2021 - HELD THAT - Reliance placed in the case of case of AARCITY BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, M/S. NAND SPARK SHINE COMPANY, M/S. VSL SECURITY SERVICES PVT. LTD. AND ORION AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2021 (12) TMI 890 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT where it was held that Once the petitioners had already been granted benefit of the notifications dated 23.04.2019 (Annexure P-6), dated 25.06.2020 (Annexure P-7) and dated 29.08.2021 (Annexure P-10), the time limit for making such application should have extended up to the 30th day of September, 2021. The proposition of law laid down in Aarcity Builders Private Limited case need not be disputed - also it is not a case where a vested right has accrued in any of the parties by efflux of time. Thus, to hold that the plea of limitation would have an effect to defeat the right to livelihood vested in the petitioner, shall be against the spirit of Constitution of India. It is directed that in case, the petitioner now moves an application/appeal for revocation of cancellation (if necessary, manually) within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the same would be deemed to be within limitation and would be decided on merits, in accordance with law - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Cancellation of GST registration and rejection of appeal without entertainment.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, an Assessee under the GST Act, sought a writ for quashing the order canceling his registration and rejecting his appeal without consideration. The petitioner, a Contractor under M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Panipat, was inactive due to health reasons from April 2018 to April 2020. A show cause notice for cancellation was issued on 01.05.2019, citing discontinuation of business. The petitioner did not respond, leading to the cancellation order on 15.05.2019. The petitioner resumed business in June 2020 and filed an appeal against the cancellation order on 22.12.2021, which was rejected on 09.04.2022, citing delay in submission.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued for the entertainment of the appeal, citing a judgment highlighting the difficulties faced by taxpayers under the new GST Act. The judgment referred to various Amnesty Schemes introduced due to procedural unfamiliarity. A notification dated 23.04.2019 allowed applications for revocation of cancellation of registration under Section 30 until 22.07.2019 for orders passed up to 31.03.2019. Subsequent notifications extended these deadlines, considering challenges faced by taxpayers transitioning to the new system.

3. A notification on 29.08.2021 extended the time limit for revocation applications for cancellations between 01.03.2020 to 31.08.2021 until 30.09.2021. The respondents contended that this extension applied only to cases within the specified date range. The petitioner argued for a broader interpretation of the notification, considering the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and the previous extensions granted. The Court agreed with the petitioner, emphasizing the need to protect the right to livelihood and ruled in favor of the petitioner.

4. The Court allowed the petition, directing the petitioner to submit an application/appeal for revocation of cancellation within 30 days of receiving the order copy. The Court deemed such submission within the limitation period and instructed for a decision on merits in accordance with the law. The judgment emphasized the importance of upholding constitutional principles and protecting individuals' rights in legal proceedings.