9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 112 - HC - GSTRejection of Petitioner s appeal as not maintainable - cancellation of GST registration under section 107 of the GST Act - HELD THAT - A perusal of the impugned order clearly indicates that although the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the suo-moto orders of the Supreme Court in respect of the limitation period considered the same and held the same to be within limitation, however, it has held that the appeal to be not maintainable as the course of action under section 30 was not adopted. This court in BALAJI ENGINEERING WORKS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2022 (5) TMI 637 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT n similar circumstances this court has granted an opportunity to the Petitioner to file an application before the authority under section 30 of the CGST Act - We therefore do not propose to take any different course of action in the matter. We are inclined to afford an opportunity to the Petitioner to file an application to the authority under section 30 of the CGST Act. It is made clear that if an application is made by Petitioner within 15 days from today before the authority under section 30 of the CGST Act, the authority to consider the same and take a decision on merits as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from today. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting appeal under GST Act for cancellation of registration due to failure to approach jurisdictional CGST authority for revocation of cancellation under section 30. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the order rejecting their appeal against the cancellation of GST registration due to failure to approach the jurisdictional CGST authority for revocation under section 30 of the GST Act. The Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-II) rejected the appeal as not maintainable, despite finding it within the period of limitation. The court noted similar cases where petitioners were granted the opportunity to file an application under section 30. The court agreed with previous decisions that if the appellate authority believed the petitioner should have filed such an application, an opportunity should have been given. The court emphasized the importance of allowing the petitioner to follow the necessary procedure under section 30. The court directed the petitioner to file an application within 15 days before the authority under section 30, with a mandate for the authority to decide on the application expeditiously within three months. Conclusion: The High Court disposed of the writ petition, providing no costs, and directed the petitioner to file an application under section 30 of the CGST Act within 15 days. The authority was instructed to consider the application and make a decision on merits expeditiously within three months from the date of the judgment. The court's decision emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedures under the law and granting petitioners the opportunity to rectify any deficiencies in compliance with statutory requirements.
|
