9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stration should not be cancelled for non-compliance of specified provisions in the GST Act and the Rules made thereunder. 5. The Petitioner filed a Reply dated 27th April 2021 to the said Show Cause Notice dated 7th January 2021. The Adjudicating Authority, i.e., the Superintendent, CGST, by an Order dated 30th April 2021, cancelled the registration of the Petitioner. 6. Being aggrieved by the said Order dated 30th April 2021 cancelling its registration, the Petitioner filed an Application online, through the GST Portal, seeking revocation of cancellation of registration. 7. Since the Respondents failed to take any action upon the said Application filed by the Petitioner for revocation of cancellation of registration, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition in this Court, being Writ Petition No. 704 of 2022. By an Order dated 14th March 2022 passed in the said Writ Petition this Court directed the Respondents to decide the Application of the Petitioner for revocation of cancellation within four weeks from the date of the appearance of the Petitioner and directed the Petitioner to appear on 22nd March 2022. 8. In compliance of the Order dated 14th March 2022 of this Court, the Advo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r filed another Writ Petition in this Court, being Writ Petition (L) No. 16377 of 2023. By an Order dated 12th September 2023 passed in the said Writ Petition, the Order dated 19th May 2023 was set aside. The Petitioner's Appeal was restored to the file of Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 2 was directed to dispose of the Appeal, in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, and, in any event within a period of eight weeks from the date a copy of the said Order was presented before Respondent No. 2. 13. The Petitioner, by its Advocate's letter dated 25th September 2023, filed detailed submissions before Respondent No. 2. 14. By an Order dated 25th October 2023, Respondent No. 2 rejected the said Appeal of the Petitioner on the ground that it was barred by limitation. 15. Since the Tribunal under Section 112 of the CGST Act, before whom an Appeal would lie against the said Order, has not been constituted, the Petitioner has filed the present Petition impugning the said Order dated 25th October 2023. 16. Mr. Pathak, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, submitted that, by the Order dated 12th September 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the impugned Order dated 25th October 2023 ought to be set aside and Respondent No. 2 ought to be directed to decide the Appeal of the Petitioner on merits. 20. On the other hand, Mr. Adik, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, supported the impugned Order. Mr. Adik submitted that it is an admitted position that the Appeal was filed on 20th December 2022. He further submitted that the Order dated 31st March 2022 was sent by Speed Post to the registered place of business of the Petitioner but the same was returned with the remark "Left" on the envelope. However, apart from the same, the said Order dated 31st March 2022 was also e-mailed to the registered e-mail ID of the Petitioner on 4th April 2022. Mr. Adik submitted that, as per provisions of Section 169(1)(c) of the CGST Act, an Order could be served by sending a communication to the e-mail address provided at the time of registration or as amended from time to time. He submitted that, as provided by Section 169(1)(c) of the CGST Act, the Order dated 31st March 2022 had been validly served on the Petitioner by e-mail on 4th April 2022. He submitted that, since the Appeal was filed by the Petitioner only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Division bench of this Court (of which one of us, G. S. Kulkarni J., was a member), wherein, whilst remanding the Appeal back to Respondent No. 2 it had been directed that Respondent No. 2 should consider all factors whilst deciding whether the Appeal is filed within the period of limitation. Despite the same, in the impugned Order dated 25th October 2023, Respondent No. 2 has come to the conclusion that the Appeal filed by the Petitioner is barred by limitation on the basis that the Order dated 31st March 2022 had been communicated to the Petitioner on its registered e-mail ID on 4th April 2022, without considering at all the letter dated 9th September 2022 addressed by the Petitioner. 25. In our view, the contents of the said letter dated 9th September 2022 clearly show that the Petitioner had not received the Order dated 31st March 2022 on 4th April 2022 or on any other date prior to 9th September 2022. By the said letter dated 9th September 2022, the Petitioner has clearly recorded that, despite the earlier Order dated 14th March 2022 of this Court directing the Respondents to decide the issue of cancellation of CGST registration of the Petitioner within four weeks from the da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
