2024 (10) TMI 1304 - HC - GST

Cancellation of GST registration - appeal was preferred beyond the period of limitation - condonation of delay without there being any proper explanation - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that after service of the impugned order dated 19.1.2023, the appeal should have been preferred within limitation, but the appeal has been preferred beyond the limitation. Admittedly, the impugned order dated 19.1.2023 was received by the petitioner - Further, before this Court also, petitioners have failed to give any good ground for condonation of delay, therefore, this Court, under extra ordinary jurisdiction, cannot interfere with the impugned orders. The Apex Court in the case of SINGH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT , has specifically held ' Commissioner and the High Court were therefore justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days' period.' Thus, no interference is called for in the impugned orders - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the cancellation of GST registration.
2. Timeliness and admissibility of the appeal against the cancellation order.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 to condone delay and entertain the writ petition.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Cancellation of GST Registration:

The petitioners, engaged in the business of cosmetics, had their GST registration cancelled by the authorities. The cancellation was challenged by the petitioners, who argued that they had obtained a GSTIN and were conducting business lawfully. The cancellation was effected via an order dated 28.12.2022, and upon receiving this order, the petitioners filed a revocation application on 7.1.2023, which was subsequently rejected on 19.1.2023. The petitioners contended that the cancellation was unjustified, but the court did not delve into the merits of this claim as the primary focus was on procedural compliance regarding the appeal.

2. Timeliness and Admissibility of the Appeal Against the Cancellation Order:

The petitioners filed an appeal against the rejection of their revocation application, but it was dismissed as time-barred on 25.6.2024. The Standing Counsel for the State argued that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation as set out in Section 107 of the relevant Act, and no satisfactory explanation for the delay was provided. The court noted that the order dated 19.1.2023 was indeed served on the petitioners, yet the appeal was not filed until 28.5.2023, which exceeded the permissible period for filing an appeal. The court emphasized the statutory limitations, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Jamshedpur, which held that appellate authorities cannot condone delays beyond the statutory period. The court found no grounds to condone the delay, thus upholding the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.

3. Jurisdiction of the High Court Under Article 226 to Condon Delay and Entertain the Writ Petition:

The petitioners sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to condone the delay and entertain their petition. However, the court reiterated the principle that Article 226 jurisdiction should not be invoked when an alternative remedy is available, as established in cases such as Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited. The court highlighted that the High Court's jurisdiction is discretionary and should be exercised with restraint, particularly when statutory remedies are bypassed. The Supreme Court's ruling in State of Haryana v. Hindustan Machine Tools Limited was cited, emphasizing that the High Court should not contravene express statutory provisions regarding limitation periods. The court concluded that the legislative intent was clear in limiting the period for filing appeals and that invoking Article 226 to override these limitations would undermine the statutory framework.

Conclusion:

Based on the statutory framework and judicial precedents, the court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the petitioners failed to provide adequate justification for the delay in filing the appeal. The court held that it could not interfere with the impugned orders under its extraordinary jurisdiction, thereby upholding the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.