Penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - detention, seizure and release of goods in transit - exempt supply / non-taxable supply - E-way bill compliance and portal glitch defence - reduction of penalty for exempted goods to prescribed minimaPenalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - reduction of penalty for exempted goods to prescribed minima - Validity and quantum of the penalty imposed under clause (a) of Section 129(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority had imposed penalty equal to 200% of tax payable by applying clause (a) of Section 129(1). The appellate authority found that the transaction concerned does not attract tax liability because it was a stock transfer effected by delivery challan and therefore falls within the definition of 'exempt supply' as including non-taxable supply. Since the goods are exempted/non-taxable, the statutory scheme prescribes a lower monetary ceiling for penalty under Section 129(1)(a) (i.e., an amount equal to two per cent of the value of goods or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less). The appellant's conduct was held to be inadvertent and not mala fide, and the larger penalty calculated as 200% of tax was therefore held to be incorrect as applied to exempted goods. Applying the statutory proviso for exempted goods, the penalty was reduced to the prescribed maximum of twenty-five thousand rupees under each Act. [Paras 8, 9, 11]Penalty imposed under Section 129(1)(a) reduced to Rs. 25,000 under CGST and Rs. 25,000 under SGST (Gujarat GST) in place of the earlier impugned higher amounts; impugned order modified to that extent.Exempt supply / non-taxable supply - detention, seizure and release of goods in transit - Legal characterisation of the movement as stock transfer / non-taxable (exempt) supply for the purpose of Section 129 - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority examined the nature of the transaction and concluded that the goods were moved as a stock transfer under delivery challans to an installation site and did not attract GST. Relying on the definition in Section 2(47) which treats non-taxable supplies as included within 'exempt supply', the authority held that the transaction is of exempted/non-taxable character. Consequently, the penalty regime for exempted goods under Section 129 applies to the case of detention and release of goods in transit. [Paras 6, 9]Movement qualified as stock transfer / non-taxable (exempt) supply and penalty provisions for exempted goods under Section 129 apply.E-way bill compliance and portal glitch defence - Acceptability of the appellant's plea that failure to generate the E-way bill at the time of dispatch was due to technical glitches on the E-way portal - HELD THAT: - The appellant asserted that the E-way bill could not be generated at dispatch due to technical problems and that it was generated subsequently. The appellate authority noted that no correspondence or contemporaneous communication with the E-way portal authorities was produced to substantiate the glitch defence. The authority found that in an ideal situation the appellant should have informed the portal authority and that absence of such evidence precluded acceptance of the portal-glitch explanation for non-generation of E-way Part B at the time of dispatch. Thus the plea of technical glitch was rejected for lack of proof. [Paras 6, 9]Portal-glitch defence for non-generation of the E-way bill at dispatch is not accepted for want of supporting correspondence or evidence.Final Conclusion: The appeal is partly allowed: the classification of the transfer as stock transfer/non-taxable (exempt) supply was accepted, the portal-glitch defence was rejected for lack of proof, and the penalty under Section 129(1)(a) was modified and reduced to the statutory ceiling for exempted goods (Rs. 25,000 under CGST and Rs. 25,000 under the Gujarat GST Act).

Refund of tax - time bar under Section 54 of the CGST Act - exclusion of limitation period (15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022) - reverse charge mechanism (RCM) - validity / ultra vires of notification imposing IGST on ocean freight - availability of refund where part amount was availed as ITC - requirement of speaking order / principles of natural justice - interest on delayed refund under Section 56 of the CGST ActTime bar under Section 54 of the CGST Act - exclusion of limitation period (15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022) - Whether the refund application dated 08.09.2021 was barred by limitation under Section 54 of the CGST Act. - HELD THAT: - The Appellate Authority examined the statutory prescription in Section 54 and the definition of 'relevant date', and considered the Supreme Court orders excluding the period 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 from limitation as well as subsequent CBIC instruments. Having regard to the order of the Apex Court and Notification No. 13/2022 Central Tax (which excludes 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for computation of limitation for refund applications under Section 54), the Authority held that the refund application filed on 08.09.2021 fell within the extended limitation period and therefore was not time barred. The adjudicating authority's conclusion that the claim was beyond two years was set aside on this basis. [Paras 7, 9]Refund application dated 08.09.2021 is within the extended limitation period and is not time barred.Reverse charge mechanism (RCM) - validity / ultra vires of notification imposing IGST on ocean freight - availability of refund where part amount was availed as ITC - Whether the appellant had made an excess payment liable to refund and whether the amount paid under Entry No.10 of Notification No.10/2017 (IGST on ocean freight for CIF imports) was refundable. - HELD THAT: - The Authority noted that the adjudicating authority had rejected the refund saying 'there appears to be no excess payment' without providing any reconciliation or justification. The appellate authority referred to judicial precedents holding the impugned levy on ocean freight to be unsustainable (including the Gujarat High Court decision in Mohit Minerals and subsequent binding pronouncements), and agreed with the appellant that the payment under the Entry in Notification No.10/2017 was not required to be made. On the factual record the appellant had availed ITC of a portion of the aggregate IGST paid; of the total reverse charge paid, Rs.5,885 (the unavailed portion) remained non adjusted and was found to be refundable. The adjudicating authority's non speaking finding that 'there appears to be no excess payment' was rejected for lack of reasoned justification. [Paras 8, 9]Amount of Rs. 5,885 (being the portion of IGST paid under RCM not availed as ITC) is refundable to the appellant; the adjudicating authority's contrary conclusion is set aside.Final Conclusion: Appeal allowed; refund of the non ITC portion of IGST paid under RCM (claimed amount Rs. 5,885) is sanctioned to the appellant as the claim is within extended limitation and the impugned levy on ocean freight was not exigible as held; the order under challenge is set aside.

Detention, seizure and release under section 129 - inspection of goods in movement under section 68 - validity of e-way bill and requirement of Part B for validity - penalty under section 129 not leviable merely for expiry of e-way bill absent intent to evade - requirement of opportunity of being heard under section 129(4) - Circular clarifying non-initiation of section 129 for minor e-way bill discrepanciesDetention, seizure and release under section 129 - validity of e-way bill and requirement of Part B for validity - penalty under section 129 not leviable merely for expiry of e-way bill absent intent to evade - Legality of imposition of tax and penalty under section 129 where the e-way bill was found expired at the time of inspection despite supporting tax invoice, alleged extensions of e-way bill validity, and payment of IGST. - HELD THAT: - The authority examined whether mere expiry of the e-way bill at the time of interception justified initiation of proceedings under section 129 and levy of tax and penalty. The adjudicatory text records that the consignment was supported by tax invoice and GR, IGST had been charged separately and paid, and the quantity and nature of goods were not disputed. The appellant produced evidence of revalidation/extensions of the e-way bill and a toll receipt indicating entry into the State within the extended validity. Relying on the statutory scheme and the principle that section 129 proceedings aim to prevent evasion of tax, the authority held that expiry of the e-way bill alone, without material demonstrating deliberate evasion or dishonest conduct, cannot sustain the inference of tax evasion necessary for imposing the full tax-plus-penalty under section 129. The decision also referred to the supervisory clarification that minor discrepancies in e-way bill details should not routinely trigger section 129 proceedings. On these grounds the impugned order imposing tax and penalty under section 129 was quashed and set aside. [Paras 25, 26, 30, 31, 32]The order imposing tax and penalty under section 129 was quashed; tax/penalty could not be sustained based solely on expiry of the e-way bill without evidence of intent to evade.Inspection of goods in movement under section 68 - requirement of opportunity of being heard under section 129(4) - Circular clarifying non-initiation of section 129 for minor e-way bill discrepancies - Whether the impugned order was vitiated by procedural defects including failure to verify e-way bill details on portal, issuance of notice on the same date/time as interception, failure to upload prescribed forms, and absence of reasoned findings. - HELD THAT: - The authority found deficiencies in the proper officer's conduct and the impugned order. The order contained inconsistent and erroneous entries as to e-way bill validity, and recorded issuance of a notice directing appearance 'on or before' the same date and time as interception, indicating absence of a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The proper officer neither recorded reasons explaining how tax evasion was established nor demonstrated that required portal verifications and uploads (such as MOV-04/MOV-09 and e-way bill parts) had been carried out. These lacunae manifested a lack of application of mind and rendered the order bereft of reasoning. While the section 129 determination was set aside for these and substantive reasons, the authority exercised discretion to impose a mitigated penalty under section 125 for the breach of rules governing movement of goods, directing recovery of that penalty and refund of any balance. [Paras 23, 24, 26, 27, 29]Impugned order is vitiated by procedural and factual lapses; proceedings under section 129 are quashed, but a reduced penalty under section 125 is imposed and recovery/refund directed.Final Conclusion: Appeal allowed. The order imposing tax and penalty under section 129 is quashed and set aside for lack of material to infer tax evasion and for procedural infirmities; however a reduced penalty under section 125 is imposed, to be recovered and the balance refunded to the appellant.

Condonation of delay under Section 107 CGST Act, 2017 - Limitation for filing appeal to Appellate Authority and one month condonation ceiling - Effect of Supreme Court orders excluding period 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 for computation of limitation - Power of Appellate Authority to entertain belated appeals only within the statutory one month extensionCondonation of delay under Section 107 CGST Act, 2017 - Limitation for filing appeal to Appellate Authority and one month condonation ceiling - Effect of Supreme Court orders excluding period 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 for computation of limitation - Timeliness of the appeal and whether the delay in filing could be condoned - HELD THAT: - The appellant filed the appeal on 17.11.2021 against the order dated 21.11.2019. Section 107(1) prescribes filing within three months and Section 107(4) permits condonation by the Appellate Authority for a further period of one month if sufficient cause is shown. The Supreme Court excluded the period 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 for computation of limitation and directed restoration of the balance period thereafter; CBIC clarified applicability of that order to appeals under quasi judicial GST provisions. Applying these directions, the Authority examined the dates and found that the appeal was filed beyond the three month period and also after the maximum one month condonation permissible under Section 107(4). The appellant did not furnish any sufficient cause to justify the extended delay. Reliance was placed on precedent holding that the appellate authority cannot condone delay beyond the statutory one month limit. Consequently the appeal could not be entertained on account of limitation and was not decided on merits. [Paras 7, 10, 11, 12]Appeal rejected as barred by limitation; delay beyond the three months and the further one month condonation period could not be condoned and the appeal was dismissed without adjudication on merits.Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed on the sole ground of limitation: having been filed beyond the three month period and after the maximum one month condonation permitted under Section 107(4), and in absence of sufficient cause, the Appellate Authority refused to entertain the appeal and did not decide the merits.

Appeal under Section 107 - Condonation of delay - Limitation excluded period 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 - Extension of limitation by the Supreme Court's orders - Rejection of appeal on grounds of limitation without adjudication on meritsAppeal under Section 107 - Condonation of delay - Limitation excluded period 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 - The appeal was barred by limitation and is not entertainable. - HELD THAT: - The impugned order was communicated on 27.11.2019 and the statutory period for filing an appeal under Section 107(1) is three months from communication, with the Appellate Authority empowered to condone delay only for a further period of one month under Section 107(4). The appellant filed the appeal on 22.10.2021, which is beyond the prescribed period and also beyond the single-month condonation window. The appellant did not establish sufficient cause for the delay; the contention about a technical freeze on the portal and subsequent filing of pending returns up to November-2019 does not explain the failure to file the appeal within the condonable period. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court excluding the period 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 from computation of limitation and the CBIC circular clarifying its application were considered, but even after applying that exclusion the appeal remained filed beyond the condonable period permitted by Section 107(4). Reliance on the principle in M/s Singh Enterprises was placed to underscore that the appellate authority has no power to condone delay beyond the one-month period. Consequently, the appeal is time-barred and cannot be admitted for consideration on merits. [Paras 7, 10, 11, 12]Appeal rejected as barred by limitation; condonation beyond one month under Section 107(4) could not be granted.Rejection on grounds of limitation without adjudication on merits - The merits of the cancellation order were not decided because the appeal was dismissed on limitation grounds. - HELD THAT: - Having found that the appeal was filed beyond the statutory period and beyond the one-month condonable period under Section 107(4), the Appellate Authority declined to examine or adjudicate the substantive grounds raised by the appellant regarding technical difficulties and filing of returns. The appeal was therefore disposed of on procedural limitation grounds without entering into the merits of revocation of the cancelled registration. [Paras 12, 13]Substantive contentions on revocation of cancelled registration were not adjudicated; appeal disposed of on limitation grounds.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed as time barred; the Appellate Authority declined to condone delay beyond the one month period permitted under Section 107(4) and therefore did not decide the merits of the challenge to cancellation of registration.

Appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Condonation of delay - limited to one month beyond prescribed period - Computation of limitation in light of Supreme Court orders in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 - Exclusion of extended period of limitation (15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021) - effect on filing timelines - No power to condone delay beyond statutory one-month extensionAppeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Condonation of delay - limited to one month beyond prescribed period - Computation of limitation in light of Supreme Court orders in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 - Whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed period or the delay was condonable - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority examined the filing date of the appeal vis-a -vis the three months limitation prescribed by Section 107(1) and the further one-month condonable period under Section 107(4). The authority considered the Supreme Court's orders excluding the period from 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 from computation of limitation and the CBIC clarification applying those orders to appeals under GST. Noting that the appeal was filed on 28.09.2021 against an order dated 14.11.2019, the authority found the appeal to be beyond the prescribed three-month period and also beyond the additional one-month condonable period. Reliance was placed on precedent holding that the appellate authority has no power to condone delay beyond the statutory one-month extension. As no sufficient cause was shown to justify condonation beyond that period, the delay was held not condonable. [Paras 7, 10, 11]Delay in filing the appeal is not condonable and the appeal is barred by limitation.Rejection of appeal on grounds of limitation without adjudication on merits - No power to condone delay beyond statutory period - Whether the appeal should be decided on merits despite the delay - HELD THAT: - Having concluded that the appeal was barred by limitation and that the appellate authority lacked power to condone the excess delay, the authority declined to examine the substantive merits of the challenge to the cancellation order. The authority applied the principle that where limitation bars the appeal and condonation beyond the permitted period is unavailable, the appeal must be rejected without going into merits. [Paras 12]The appeal is rejected on the ground of limitation without adjudication on the merits.Final Conclusion: The appeal against cancellation of GST registration is rejected as time-barred; the delay beyond the statutory three months and the one-month condonable period was not condoned and the appeal was not adjudicated on merits.

Condonation of delay by appellate authority in view of extension of limitation on account of COVID-19 - compliance with Rule 23 proviso requiring furnishing of returns and payment of dues before filing revocation - power of proper officer to revoke or reject revocation of cancellation after verification - appellate authority directing reconsideration and verification rather than deciding revocation on meritsCondonation of delay by appellate authority in view of extension of limitation on account of COVID-19 - Whether the delay in filing the appeals is to be condoned in view of the Supreme Court orders and CBIC clarification extending limitation during the COVID-19 period. - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority found that the appeals at serial numbers 1, 2 and 4 were filed beyond the three month period prescribed by Section 107(1). The authority applied the Supreme Court's orders excluding the period 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 from computation of limitation and noted the CBIC Circular clarifying applicability of that extension to filing appeals under GST. In view of these orders and the appellants' pleaded difficulties due to the pandemic, the authority was inclined to condone the delay and proceeded to decide the matters on merits. [Paras 7, 8, 9]Delay in filing the appeals is condoned in view of the Supreme Court orders and the CBIC clarification, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits.Compliance with Rule 23 proviso requiring furnishing of returns and payment of dues before filing revocation - power of proper officer to revoke or reject revocation of cancellation after verification - appellate authority directing reconsideration and verification rather than deciding revocation on merits - Whether the cancellations of registration should be set aside and revocation considered where the appellants have filed returns up to the date of cancellation and paid pending dues. - HELD THAT: - The authority examined Rule 23 of the CGST Rules and the CBIC Circular explaining that where registration is cancelled for failure to furnish returns, an application for revocation cannot be filed unless such returns are furnished and amounts due are paid. The appellants had since filed returns up to the date of cancellation and deposited pending dues. The appellate authority held that this amounted to substantial compliance with the proviso to Rule 23, and therefore the registrations could be considered for revocation. However, instead of deciding revocation itself, the authority directed the proper officer to reconsider the revocation applications, to verify payment particulars of tax, late fee, interest, penalty and the status of returns, and then pass appropriate orders under the statutory scheme. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13]Appeals allowed to the extent that the proper officer is directed to consider the appellants' revocation applications afresh after due verification of returns and payments; revocation to be decided by the proper officer in accordance with law.Final Conclusion: Delay in filing the appeals is condoned in view of the Supreme Court orders and CBIC clarification; since the appellants have filed returns up to the date of cancellation and paid dues, the appeals are allowed to the extent that the proper officer is directed to verify the compliance and reconsider the applications for revocation of cancellation of registration.

Cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns - Revocation of cancellation of registration - Extension of limitation period - Condonation of delay due to COVID-19 - Application of Notification No. 34/2021-Central Tax and CBIC Circular No. 158/14/2021-GSTExtension of limitation period - Condonation of delay due to COVID-19 - The appeals were filed within time in view of the extension of limitation granted by the Supreme Court and clarified by CBIC. - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority found that the appeals fell within the extended periods of limitation as restored/extended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's orders relating to the pandemic and as clarified by CBIC. The authority relied on the Supreme Court's continuation of its earlier orders (restoring extension of limitation) and on CBIC Circular No. 157/13/2021-GST, concluding that the appeals are timely. Consequently, the appellate time-limits under Section 107 were held to be satisfied for the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). [Paras 4]Appeals are within time and not barred by limitation.Cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns - Revocation of cancellation of registration - Application of Notification No. 34/2021-Central Tax and CBIC Circular No. 158/14/2021-GST - Registrations cancelled under clause (b) or (c) of sub section (2) of section 29 are to be considered for revocation in light of Notification No. 34/2021 and Circular No. 158/14/2021-GST; appellants' cases are to be processed accordingly. - HELD THAT: - The authority recorded that the registrations were cancelled for non-filing of returns and that the time for filing applications for revocation fell between 1 March 2020 and 31 August 2021. Notification No. 34/2021-Central Tax extended the time for filing such revocation applications to 30 September 2021, and CBIC Circular No. 158/14/2021-GST clarified that the benefit applies irrespective of the status of any pending or rejected applications. In view of these instruments, the appellate authority allowed the appeals and directed the proper officer to consider (or reconsider) the application for revocation, after due verification of tax, late fee, penalty, interest and the status of returns, applying the extended timelines provided by the notification and circular. [Paras 5, 6, 7, 8]Appeals allowed; matter remitted to the proper officer to process revocation applications under the extended timelines and after verification of compliance.Final Conclusion: Appeals allowed; appellants' registrations are to be considered for revocation in accordance with Notification No. 34/2021 and CBIC Circular No. 158/14/2021 GST, and the proper officer is directed to process any fresh or pending revocation applications after verification of tax, fees, interest, penalty and returns; appeals disposed.

Refund of excess interest paid on account of utilisation of electronic credit ledger - retrospective amendment to Section 50 of the CGST Act - interest payable on net cash tax liability - condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 107 - refund procedure under Section 54 read with Rule 89Condonation of delay in filing appeal - appeal period under Section 107(1) - Whether the appeal, filed after the three-month statutory period, was liable to be dismissed or whether delay should be condoned. - HELD THAT: - The Commissioner (Appeals) examined receipt date of the impugned order and the filing date of the appeal and applied Section 107(1) and proviso in Section 107(4). The appellate authority accepted that the appeal was filed beyond the normal three-month period but found that the appellant had shown sufficient cause for delay and that the excess delay (21 days beyond the permissible one-month extension) could be condoned. The statutory framework permits condonation of delay for up to one further month if sufficient cause is shown; the authority exercised that discretion in favour of the appellant after noting the appellant's explanation and correspondence. [Paras 7]Delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits.Refund of excess interest paid on account of utilisation of electronic credit ledger - retrospective amendment to Section 50 of the CGST Act - interest payable on net cash tax liability - refund procedure under Section 54 read with Rule 89 - Whether the appellant was entitled to refund of interest paid in excess because interest after retrospective amendment to Section 50(1) is payable only on the portion of tax discharged through the electronic cash ledger. - HELD THAT: - The authority examined the administrative instruction dated 18.09.2020 and the retrospective amendment effected by Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2021 which substitutes the proviso to Section 50(1), and noted notification bringing the amendment into force. The substituted proviso deems that interest for delayed returns is payable only on the portion of tax paid by debiting the electronic cash ledger (net cash tax liability). The appellant had, prior to issuance of the instruction and amendment, paid interest on tax discharged partly through the electronic credit ledger. Applying the amended proviso (deemed effective from 01.07.2017), the authority concluded that interest paid in respect of tax discharged through the electronic credit ledger exceeded the actual interest liability and was therefore refundable. The authority also relied on the statutory entitlement to seek refunds under Section 54(1) read with Rule 89(1) and found the appellant's refund application to fall within the prescribed form and grounds. [Paras 11, 12, 13]Impugned order rejecting the refund was set aside; the appellant is entitled to refund of interest paid in excess and the matter is remitted to the adjudicating authority to process the refund in accordance with the CGST Act, rules and applicable guidelines.Final Conclusion: The appeal was admitted by condoning the delay and the impugned order rejecting the refund has been set aside; the appellant is entitled to refund of interest paid in excess for the period July-2017 to March-2018 and the adjudicating authority is directed to process the refund claim in accordance with law and applicable procedures.

Revocation of cancellation of registration - Compliance with filing of returns as condition precedent to revocation - Computation and exclusion of limitation period due to COVID-19 - Appeals to Appellate Authority under Section 107 - Rule 23 of the CGST Rules relating to revocation procedure - Discretion to reject revocation application where returns and dues are unpaidAppeals to Appellate Authority under Section 107 - Computation and exclusion of limitation period due to COVID-19 - Timeliness of the appeal filed against the order dated 23.05.2021 - HELD THAT: - The Appellate Authority examined Section 107(1) of the CGST Act and the Supreme Court orders extending and excluding limitation periods on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. Applying those principles, the Authority found that the appeal against the impugned order dated 23.05.2021 was filed within the statutory period prescribed by Section 107 and therefore is maintainable. The Authority proceeded to decide the matter on merits. [Paras 6, 7]Appeal against Order dated 23.05.2021 was filed within the period prescribed under Section 107 and is maintainable.Revocation of cancellation of registration - Rule 23 of the CGST Rules relating to revocation procedure - Compliance with filing of returns as condition precedent to revocation - Discretion to reject revocation application where returns and dues are unpaid - Validity of rejection of the application for revocation of cancellation of registration and subsequent direction to the proper officer - HELD THAT: - The Authority considered the statutory regime under Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, including the proviso that revocation cannot be filed if returns due until the date of cancellation are not furnished and dues paid. Having examined the record and submissions, including the appellant's contention of COVID-19 disruption and the filings made, the Authority found that the appellant had filed returns up to the date of cancellation and had substantially complied with the requirements. In view of the CBIC clarification and the statutory provisos, the Authority held that the impugned rejection under REG-05 for non-compliance could not be sustained. The matter was remitted to the proper officer with directions to verify payment particulars of tax, interest, late fee and status of returns and to consider the revocation application afresh in accordance with the CGST Act and Rules. [Paras 11, 12]Order rejecting the revocation application is set aside; appeal allowed and the matter remitted to the proper officer to verify payments and returns and to decide the revocation application in accordance with law.Final Conclusion: Appeal allowed. The order rejecting the application for revocation of cancellation of registration is set aside and the proper officer is directed to verify compliance with returns and payments and to pass appropriate orders on the revocation application in accordance with the CGST Act and Rules.

Revocation of cancellation of registration - Condonation of delay under Section 107(4) - Cancellation of GST registration for failure to file returns - Compliance with Rule 23 of the CGST Rules - furnishing returns and payment of tax, interest, penalty as condition for revocation - Proper officer's power to revoke or reject revocation application under Rule 23(2) - Circular No.99/18/2019-GST - interpretation of proviso to Rule 23(1)Condonation of delay under Section 107(4) - Appeal filed beyond three months - Whether the delay in filing the appeal was liable to be condoned so as to enable adjudication on merits - HELD THAT: - The Appellate Authority examined Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 and noted the power in sub rule (4) to allow a further period of one month where sufficient cause is shown. Having considered the appellant's explanations about personal illness of a partner, COVID related disruptions and the factual assertion that pending returns and dues were subsequently filed and paid, the Authority found sufficient cause to condone the 23 day delay and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits. [Paras 7]Delay in filing the appeal condoned and appeal admitted for adjudication on merits.Revocation of cancellation of registration - Cancellation of GST registration for failure to file returns - Compliance with Rule 23 of the CGST Rules - furnishing returns and payment of tax, interest, penalty as condition for revocation - Circular No.99/18/2019-GST - interpretation of proviso to Rule 23(1) - Proper officer's power to revoke or reject revocation application under Rule 23(2) - Whether the appellant's registration should be considered for revocation by the proper officer - HELD THAT: - The Authority noted that the registration was cancelled because returns were not filed for a continuous period of six months. The appellant produced copies of GSTR 3B for October 2020 to December 2020 and multiple challans evidencing payment of taxes, interest and penalty. Rule 23 of the CGST Rules requires that where cancellation is for failure to furnish returns, no revocation application shall be filed unless returns are furnished and amounts due are paid; Circular No.99/18/2019 GST clarifies that all returns due till date of cancellation must be furnished before filing for revocation. The Authority found that the appellant had filed returns up to the date of cancellation and had substantially complied with the statutory/ rule requirements. Accordingly, the Authority directed that the proper officer may consider the appellant's revocation application after due verification of payment particulars, taxes, late fee, interest and status of returns. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13]Appeal allowed; order directs the proper officer to consider the application for revocation of cancellation after verification of payments and returns.Final Conclusion: The Appellate Authority condoned the delay in filing the appeal, allowed the appeal against cancellation of GST registration, and directed the proper officer to consider the revocation application after due verification of payments, interest, penalty and the status of returns.

Refund under Section 54(1) - limitation period - relevant date for refund claims - classification of payment as tax or deposit - refiling after deficiency under Rule 90Refund under Section 54(1) - limitation period - relevant date for refund claims - refiling after deficiency under Rule 90 - Refund claim is barred by limitation under Section 54(1) and the fresh refund filed on 21.09.2020 is beyond the prescribed period. - HELD THAT: - The Appellate Authority examined whether the refund application fell within the two-year period from the relevant date as defined in the Act. The jurisdictional officer took the relevant date as the date of payment/entry in GSTR-3B (19.04.2018) and determined that the two-year period expired before the claimant's re-filed application dated 21.09.2020. Although the appellant had earlier filed refund applications and received deficiency memos, the fresh claim filed under sub rule (3) of Rule 90 on 21.09.2020 did not cure the delay for purposes of the limitation prescribed by Section 54(1). The Authority also noted that extensions by notifications (cited in the order) extended the last date to 31.08.2020, but the re-filed claim remained after that date. Having considered the statutory scheme and the chronology of filings and deficiency communications, the Authority concluded there was no legal ground to treat the claim as within time. [Paras 7, 10, 11]The appeal is rejected insofar as the refund claim is barred by limitation and the re-filed application dated 21.09.2020 is time barred.Classification of payment as tax or deposit - refund under Section 54(1) - limitation period - The excess amounts paid by the appellant are payments made under the GST tax head and cannot be characterised as deposits; therefore the refund claim is examinable only under Section 54 and the Rules. - HELD THAT: - The appellant contended the amounts were collected without authority and were in the nature of deposits, not tax, and relied on pre GST precedents. The Authority found that the excess payments were made in the GST tax head, credit notes were issued and reflected in GSTR 01 returns, and no specific post GST provision other than Section 54 and the accompanying Rules provides for refund of such excess. Consequently, pre GST decisions cited by the appellant were held inapplicable. The Authority concluded that the claim must be considered under the statutory framework of Section 54 and related rules, and thus the limitation under Section 54(1) applies. [Paras 8, 9]The appellant's contention that the payments were deposits rather than tax is rejected; the refund claim falls to be considered under Section 54 and Rules, and is subject to its limitation.Final Conclusion: The Appellate Authority condoned the delay in filing the appeal but rejected the refund claim on merits: the excess payments are taxable receipts (not deposits) and the re filed refund application dated 21.09.2020 is time barred under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal to Appellate Authority and condonation of delay under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Condonation of delay - sufficient cause - Time barred appeal - Cancellation of registration for continuous non filing of returnsAppeal to Appellate Authority and condonation of delay under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Condonation of delay - sufficient cause - Time barred appeal - Whether the appeal was filed within the statutory period or whether delay ought to be condoned. - HELD THAT: - The appeal was filed on 02.07.2021 against the impugned order dated 20.10.2019, resulting in a delay of 17 months and 10 days beyond the three month period prescribed under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Section 107(4) permits condonation of delay only for a further period of one month if the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. The appellant did not furnish any reason or satisfactory explanation to demonstrate sufficient cause for the prolonged delay. In absence of such justification, the statutory power to extend time for filing is not attractable beyond the limited one month proviso and the appeal cannot be entertained as within time. [Paras 7]Delay of 17 months 10 days is not condonable; the appeal is time barred.Time barred appeal - Cancellation of registration for continuous non filing of returns - Whether the Appellate Authority should decide the merits of the appeal against cancellation of registration. - HELD THAT: - Because the appeal was held to be time barred and no sufficient cause for condonation was shown, the Appellate Authority declined to examine the merits of the challenge to cancellation of GST registration. The absence of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal on account of time bar precludes adjudication on substantive merits. [Paras 7, 8]Merits of the appeal against cancellation were not considered; appeal rejected on the ground of time bar.Final Conclusion: The appeal is rejected as time barred for want of any sufficient cause for condonation of delay; consequently the Appellate Authority did not adjudicate the merits of the challenge to cancellation of registration.

Revocation of cancellation of registration under Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - requirement to furnish returns and pay tax, interest and late fee before filing revocation application - verification of payment particulars and status of returns prior to revocation - Circular No.99/18/2019-GST clarifying first proviso to sub rule (1) of Rule 23Revocation of cancellation of registration under Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - requirement to furnish returns and pay tax, interest and late fee before filing revocation application - Circular No.99/18/2019-GST clarifying first proviso to sub rule (1) of Rule 23 - Whether the appellant had complied with the statutory pre conditions for seeking revocation of cancellation and whether the revocation ought to be considered. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority had rejected the application for revocation on the ground that interest liability was not deposited (para 5). The appellant produced copies of GSTR 3B returns for the periods up to the date of cancellation and a Form DRC 03 evidencing payment of the stated interest liability (paras 6-7). Applying Rule 23(1) of the CGST Rules and the clarification in Circular No.99/18/2019 GST, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the appellant had substantially complied with the proviso by filing the returns and making the payment relied upon by the adjudicating authority (para 10). On that basis the appeal was allowed to the extent that revocation may be considered by the proper officer. [Paras 5, 6, 7, 10]The appellant has substantially complied with the conditions for filing an application for revocation and the appeal is allowed to the extent that revocation should be considered.Verification of payment particulars and status of returns prior to revocation - authority to revoke or reject revocation application under Rule 23(2) - Whether the matter should be remitted to the proper officer for verification and final disposal of the revocation application. - HELD THAT: - Although the Commissioner (Appeals) found compliance with the statutory pre conditions, he directed that the proper officer must consider the revocation application after due verification of the payment particulars of tax, late fee, interest and the status of returns (para 10). The order thus does not itself revoke the registration but remits the matter for verification and final action by the proper officer in accordance with Rule 23(2)(a)/(b). [Paras 10, 11]Matter remitted to the proper officer to verify payment particulars and status of returns and to decide the application for revocation accordingly.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed insofar as the appellant is found to have substantially met the pre conditions for seeking revocation; the file is remitted to the proper officer to verify payment particulars and return status and to decide the revocation application in accordance with Rule 23 and the applicable circular.

Revocation of cancellation of registration - requirement to furnish returns and pay tax/interest before filing application for revocation - substantial compliance with statutory pre-conditions for revocation - power of proper officer to reject or revoke under Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - verification of payment particulars and status of returns before revocationRevocation of cancellation of registration - requirement to furnish returns and pay tax/interest before filing application for revocation - substantial compliance with statutory pre-conditions for revocation - Whether the appellant had complied with the statutory pre-conditions so that the application for revocation of cancellation of registration could be considered. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority rejected the application for revocation on the ground that the appellant had not replied to the show cause notice and had not deposited interest. The appellant produced evidence of filing GSTR-3B returns up to the date of cancellation and payment of interest (DRC-03 dated 15.06.2021). The appellate authority examined Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and the CBIC clarification that returns due until the date of cancellation must be filed and amounts due paid before an application for revocation can be entertained. On the material placed on record the authority found that the appellant had filed returns up to the date of cancellation and had deposited the interest liability, thereby substantially complying with the conditions prescribed for filing an application for revocation. Applying the statutory requirement and the evidence, the appeal was allowed and the registration was directed to be considered for revocation by the proper officer. [Paras 7, 10]Appellant has substantially complied with the pre-conditions; appeal allowed and registration to be considered for revocation.Power of proper officer to reject or revoke under Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - verification of payment particulars and status of returns before revocation - Directed course for further action by the proper officer before revocation is granted. - HELD THAT: - Although the appellate authority found that the appellant had substantially complied with the pre-conditions, it did not itself pass an order of revocation. Instead, the authority directed the proper officer to consider the revocation application after due verification of payment particulars of tax, late fee, interest and the status of returns, consistent with the requirement in Rule 23 and CBIC guidance. The order thus mandates verification by the proper officer as a necessary step prior to issuance of FORM GST REG-22 or rejection under FORM GST REG-05. [Paras 10]Matter remitted to the proper officer for due verification of payments and returns and thereafter consideration of revocation.Final Conclusion: Appeal allowed on the ground of substantial compliance with conditions for filing revocation; matter remitted to the proper officer to verify payment particulars and returns and to decide the revocation application accordingly.

Refund of unutilised input tax credit - relevant date for refund (date goods pass the frontier / EGM date) - time limitation under Section 54(1) - acknowledgement and deficiency procedure under Rule 90(2)-(3) - re filing after deficiency as fresh application - communication of deficiency memo through the common portalAcknowledgement and deficiency procedure under Rule 90(2)-(3) - communication of deficiency memo through the common portal - Whether the deficiency memo issued on 12.11.2020 was communicated to the appellant and whether the original refund application filed on 02.11.2020 suffered any deficiency. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicator found that Rule 90(3) mandates communication of deficiencies through the common portal and not by e mail or physical copy. The appellant's own e mail admitted awareness of the RFD 03 dated 12.11.2020. On scrutiny the proper officer recorded that all supporting documents were not uploaded with the application filed on 02.11.2020; the deficiency memo was therefore issued within the 15 day scrutiny period prescribed by Rule 90(2). The draft RFD 01 screenshot did not rebut the finding that mandatory documents were missing at the time of initial submission, and the issuance of the RFD 03 was held to be in consonance with the statutory scheme. [Paras 5, 6]Deficiency memo was properly communicated via the common portal and the original application filed on 02.11.2020 lacked the requisite supporting documents; the deficiency notice was valid.Refund of unutilised input tax credit - relevant date for refund (date goods pass the frontier / EGM date) - time limitation under Section 54(1) - re filing after deficiency as fresh application - Whether the refund claim was time barred under Section 54 and, if so, which parts of the claim were barred. - HELD THAT: - The authority concluded that a refund application resubmitted after rectifying deficiencies is to be treated as a fresh application for reckoning the date of filing. The relevant date for export linked refund claims is the date the goods pass the frontier, evidenced by the EGM/Let Export Order; limitation of two years under Section 54(1) is to be computed from that relevant date. Applying these principles to the shipping bills and EGMs submitted, the claim related to Invoice No. EXP/MDV/18 19/01 (EGM 06.11.2018) was held to be beyond two years from the resubmitted filing date and therefore time barred. The remainder of the refund claim fell within the limitation period and was found admissible subject to usual valuation reconciliation and circular instructions. [Paras 7, 9, 10]The resubmitted application filed on 19.11.2020 is the operative filing date; the refund portion linked to EGM dated 06.11.2018 is time barred, while the balance of the claim is within limitation and may be sanctioned after reconciliation.Final Conclusion: The appeal is partially allowed: the adjudicating authority correctly treated the RFD 03 deficiency as valid and the resubmitted RFD 01 of 19.11.2020 as the operative filing; accordingly the refund claim relating to the shipment evidenced by EGM 06.11.2018 is time barred, whereas the remaining portion of the refund claim is admissible and is to be sanctioned subject to verification and applicable valuation adjustments.

Revocation of cancellation of registration - requirement to furnish returns and pay due amounts as condition for filing revocation - failure to furnish returns - show cause notice and opportunity to reply - verification of payment particulars and status of returnsRevocation of cancellation of registration - requirement to furnish returns and pay due amounts as condition for filing revocation - Whether the appellant had complied with the condition of filing returns and payment of amounts required for seeking revocation of cancellation of registration. - HELD THAT: - The appellant filed the pending GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 returns up to the date of cancellation and subsequently deposited the interest alleged to be due. The adjudicating authority had rejected the revocation application on the ground that the appellant neither replied to the show cause notice within time nor deposited interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) examined the documentary submissions including the DRC-03 ARN evidencing payment and the copies of returns for the relevant periods and found that the appellant had substantially complied with the statutory requirement embodied in the proviso to Rule 23(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and the clarification in CBIC Circular No.99/18/2019-GST. On that basis the appellate authority concluded that the condition precedent for filing the revocation application was met in the appellant's case. [Paras 5, 6, 7, 10]Appellant found to have substantially complied with the requirement of furnishing returns and payment of due amounts, enabling consideration of revocation of cancellation.Verification of payment particulars and status of returns - show cause notice and opportunity to reply - Whether the revocation application should be finally allowed or remitted for verification by the proper officer. - HELD THAT: - Although the appellate authority accepted that the appellant had filed returns and made payment of interest, it did not itself pass an order revoking cancellation. Instead, having recorded that the statutory conditions for seeking revocation were met, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the proper officer to consider the revocation application afresh after due verification of payment particulars of tax, late fee, interest and the status of returns. The appellate order therefore sets aside the rejection of the application and remits the matter to the proper officer for verification and disposal in accordance with law. [Paras 10, 11]Rejection of the revocation application set aside and matter remitted to the proper officer to verify payments and returns and consider revocation afresh.Final Conclusion: Appeal allowed insofar as the rejection of the revocation application is set aside; the matter is remitted to the proper officer to verify payment particulars and status of returns and to consider the application for revocation of cancellation of registration afresh in accordance with law.

Refund of unutilised input tax credit on zero-rated supplies - formula for refund under Rule 89 (turnover of zero-rated supplies x Net ITC / Adjusted Total Turnover) - net input tax credit - turnover of zero-rated supply - use of FOB (shipping bill) value if lower than invoice value - adjusted total turnover for relevant period - strict construction of exemption/refund provisions in favour of revenueNet input tax credit - formula for refund under Rule 89 (turnover of zero-rated supplies x Net ITC / Adjusted Total Turnover) - Validity of the Net ITC figure adopted by the adjudicating authority for computing eligible refund. - HELD THAT: - The Commissioner (Appeals) recorded that neither party disputed the amount of input tax credit availed during the relevant period. The jurisdictional authority had verified the refund claim from RFD-01, Annexure-B, GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 and confirmed the Net ITC as declared. In view of the verification and absence of challenge to the quantum of ITC, the net input tax credit of Rs. 13,09,623/- was accepted and not interfered with while applying the Rule 89 formula to compute the maximum refundable amount. [Paras 12, 13]Net ITC as determined by the adjudicating authority is upheld and accepted for computation of refund.Turnover of zero-rated supply - use of FOB (shipping bill) value if lower than invoice value - refund of unutilised input tax credit on zero-rated supplies - Whether the turnover of zero-rated supplies for computation of refund should use the FOB (shipping bill) value when it is lower than the invoice value. - HELD THAT: - The Commissioner (Appeals) examined CBIC Circular Nos. 37/11/2018 and 125/44/2019 which advise that during processing of refund claims the value in the GST invoice and the corresponding shipping bill should be compared and the lower value sanctioned as refund. The officer relied on ICEGATE shipping bill details and CAG observations cautioning against sanctioning refund on invoice value when FOB is lower. Applying these clarifications and the principle of limiting concessionary benefits, the lower FOB (shipping bill) value was treated as the turnover of zero-rated supplies for calculating the refund under Rule 89. [Paras 11, 12, 13]FOB (shipping bill) value, where lower than invoice value, is to be taken as turnover of zero-rated supplies for refund computation; the adjudicating authority's reliance on FOB value is upheld.Adjusted total turnover for relevant period - turnover of zero-rated supply of services - Whether the appellant's proposed inclusion of turnover of zero-rated supply of services (as declared in invoices) for calculating the eligible refund is tenable. - HELD THAT: - The appellant contended for inclusion of zero-rated supply of services (amounts shown in invoice statements) in the turnover for refund calculation. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that in refund claims arising from export of goods without payment of tax, shipping bill details must be checked and the FOB value taken; the jurisdictional officer's verification on record showed the total turnover of zero-rated goods as the FOB value and the adjusted total turnover as per GSTR-3B. Given the ICEGATE verification and circular guidance limiting the value to shipping bill/FOB where relevant, the appellant's contention to include the contested services turnover for enhancing refund was rejected. [Paras 9, 12, 13]The appellant's claim to include the contested zero-rated services turnover for computing the refund is not accepted; the adjudicating authority's figures for turnover and adjusted turnover are sustained.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed. The Commissioner (Appeals) upholds the adjudicating authority's sanction of the refund after rejecting the claimed excess amount, confirming the Net ITC, the use of FOB (shipping bill) value as turnover of zero-rated goods where lower than invoice value, and the adjusted total turnover as adopted for the relevant period.

Transitional credit under Section 140(3) of the CGST Act - Condition of supplier's ineligibility for abatement under Section 140(3)(v) - Inputs contained in semi-finished or finished goods and definition of "goods" - Admissibility of credit on inputs held in stock as on the appointed day - Recovery proceedings under Section 73 of the CGST Act and applicability of interest and penalty - Statutory service/issuance requirements under Rule 142 for show cause notices and summariesTransitional credit under Section 140(3) of the CGST Act - Condition of supplier's ineligibility for abatement under Section 140(3)(v) - Admissibility of credit on inputs held in stock as on the appointed day - Whether ITC of Rs. 7,53,571 claimed in TRAN-1 on inputs held in stock as on 30.06.2017 was admissible under Section 140(3) of the CGST Act - HELD THAT: - Section 140(3) permits a registered person to take credit of eligible duties in respect of inputs held in stock on the appointed day subject to specified conditions, including that the supplier of services is not eligible for any abatement under the Act. The appellant was availing abatement resulting in GST being effectively paid at a reduced rate for construction of residential complex; therefore condition (v) of Section 140(3) is not satisfied. In view of the statutory requirement that the supplier must not be eligible for any abatement, the credit carried forward in TRAN-1 on inputs held in stock cannot be allowed. The adjudicator accordingly found the ITC of Rs. 7,53,571 to be wrongly transferred and recoverable. [Paras 6]ITC of Rs. 7,53,571 on inputs held in stock as on 30.06.2017 is not admissible under Section 140(3) and is recoverable.Inputs contained in semi-finished or finished goods and definition of "goods" - Transitional credit under Section 140(3) of the CGST Act - Whether ITC of Rs. 7,20,147 on inputs contained in semi-finished and finished goods as on 30.06.2017 was admissible under Section 140(3) - HELD THAT: - Section 2(59) defines 'inputs' as goods other than capital goods used or intended to be used by a supplier; Section 2(52) defines 'goods' as movable property and only includes things attached to or forming part of the land where agreed to be severed before supply. A building under construction, being attached to earth and forming immovable property, does not fall within the ordinary meaning of 'goods' for purposes of inputs contained in semi-finished or finished goods. Reliance on authorities considering work-in-progress that becomes immovable property supports that transitional credit on inputs already used and contained in WIP of building construction is not allowable under Section 140(3). Applying these definitions and precedents, the credit of Rs. 7,20,147 was held inadmissible and recoverable. [Paras 7]ITC of Rs. 7,20,147 on inputs contained in semi-finished and finished goods as on 30.06.2017 is not admissible under Section 140(3) and is recoverable.Recovery proceedings under Section 73 of the CGST Act and applicability of interest and penalty - Statutory service/issuance requirements under Rule 142 for show cause notices and summaries - Validity of proceedings initiated under Section 73 read with Rule 142, and entitlement to interest and penalty for irregular/transitional credit carried forward - HELD THAT: - The adjudicator found that the appellant irregularly carried forward transitional ITC with intent to avail inadmissible credit and that the irregularity was detected during departmental audit. Consequently, provisions of Section 73 are invokable for recovery of the wrongly taken credit. Interest under Section 50 and penalty under Section 122 were held applicable. The appellant's contention that issuance/uploading requirements under Rule 142 were not followed was examined; the authority recorded that the show cause notice was issued manually because electronic facility/module was not available at the time, and noted that reference to SGST Act in the impugned order was inadvertent since the credit pertained to central excise duty credited to CGST head. [Paras 9, 12, 13]Proceedings under Section 73 are valid; wrongly taken transitional credit is recoverable with interest and penalty. Manual issuance of the show cause notice was accepted due to non-availability of electronic module.Final Conclusion: The appeal is rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the impugned order: transitional ITC of Rs. 14,73,718 claimed in TRAN-1 (comprising the amounts disallowed on inputs held in stock and on inputs contained in semi finished/finished goods) is not admissible, is recoverable, and the recovery proceedings under Section 73 with interest and penalty are sustained; procedural issuance of the SCN was accepted as manual due to portal unavailability.

Revocation of cancellation of registration - compliance with Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - requirement to furnish returns and pay tax, interest, penalty and late fee before filing for revocation - satisfaction of the proper officer with reasons to be recorded in writing - CBCIC clarification on filing returns prior to revocationRevocation of cancellation of registration - compliance with Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - requirement to furnish returns and pay tax, interest, penalty and late fee before filing for revocation - Whether the appellant's application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration should be allowed in view of filing of returns and payment of tax, late fee and interest. - HELD THAT: - The Commissioner (Appeals) examined the material including the appellant's submissions, copies of challans and GSTR-3B returns and the provisions of Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 along with the Board's circular clarifying that where registration is cancelled for failure to furnish returns, returns due till the date of cancellation must be furnished and amounts due paid before filing for revocation. The appellant produced proof of filing GSTR-3B returns up to the date of cancellation and challans/DRC-03 evidencing payment of tax, late fee and interest including payment for the period May-2020 to December-2020. Having found that the appellant has substantially complied with the statutory pre-conditions for seeking revocation, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the registration may be considered for revocation. The matter is remitted to the proper officer to verify the payment particulars of tax, late fee and interest and the status of returns and then to decide the revocation application in accordance with Rule 23, recording reasons in writing if the application is rejected. [Paras 5, 7, 10]Appeal allowed; matter remitted to the proper officer to consider the application for revocation after due verification of payment particulars and returns.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed and the Commissioner (Appeals) directs the proper officer to consider the appellant's application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration after verifying tax, late fee and interest payments and the status of returns, in accordance with Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017.