9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... less to say, when the respondent No.2 hears the matter on remand, petitioner shall submit all the returns as per the statute. The matter remanded back to respondent No.3 to consider the grievance expressed by the petitioner against cancellation of GST registration and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. - THE HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI ORDER ( Per the Hon ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan ) Heard Mr. Narendra Kumar.T, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3. Also heard Mr. V.Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 6; and Mr. B.Mukherjee, learned counsel representing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1 was unsuccessful. By the order-in-appeal dated 31.01.2023, the appeal was rejected on the ground that the date for filing application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration had already expired. 8. Issue raised in this writ petition is no more res integra. 9. This Court in Nithya Constructions v. Union of India 2022 (7) TMI 186 held as follows: 3. We find that issue raised in this writ petition is covered by a decision of this Court dated 27.06.2022 in W.P.No.27071 of 2022 (M/s. Chenna Krishnama Charyulu Karampudi v. Additional Commissioner (Appeals-I)). 4. Relevant portion of the aforesaid order dated 27.06.2022 is extracted hereunder:- 3. Petitioner i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 7. Though the lower appellate authority may be right in holding that while it may allow filing of an appeal beyond the limitation of three months for a further period of one month, therefore, by extension of limitation beyond the extended period of one month delay beyond the extended period of one month cannot be condoned, we are of the view that such a stand taken by respondent No.1 may adversely affect the petitioner. This is more so because respondent No.2 had suo motu cancelled the GST registration of the petitioner on the ground of non-filing of returns and as GST Tribunal has not been constituted under Section 109 of the CGST Act, petitioner would be left without any remedy. 8. We further find that the issue pertains to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
