2020 (3) TMI 290 - HC - GST

High Court quashes order rejecting GST appeal, cites failure to consider crucial grounds

M/s Lakhan Singh Chauhan and Company, M/s Parmanand Traders, M/s Navaakar Real Estates Versus Union of India And others

The High Court allowed all the writ petitions, quashing the impugned order rejecting the appeal based on delay in filing return under the GST Act. The ... Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Cancellation of GST Registration - Section 29(2) of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- In the impugned order, there is no consideration to the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal regarding non-communication of the order to the petitioner and start of period of limitation from the date of communication or knowledge of the order. The appellate authority has passed the said order without considering the aforesaid grounds. The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority to decide the question of delay afresh without being influenced by the previous order - Petition allowed by way of remand. Issues:Challenge to rejection of appeal by Sales Tax Officer based on delay in filing return under GST Act.Analysis:The writ petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection of appeal by the Sales Tax Officer on the ground of delay. The respondent had issued a show cause notice for cancellation of GST Registration due to failure to furnish returns for a continuous period. The petitioner claimed that the notice was not served, leading to the cancellation of registration. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, which was rejected on the basis of delay.The petitioner argued that the impugned order was contrary to the provisions of Section 107 of the GST Act. They contended that the period of limitation should start from the date of communication of the order, not from the date of issuance. The petitioner highlighted that the notice was sent to an erstwhile consultant who did not forward it, resulting in delayed knowledge of the order. The petitioner asserted that the appellate authority did not consider these facts while passing the order.The respondents supported the impugned order, stating that communication to the erstwhile consultant constituted valid communication to the petitioner. However, the Court found that the impugned order did not address the grounds raised in the memo of appeal regarding non-communication of the order to the petitioner and the start of the limitation period from the date of communication or knowledge of the order. The appellate authority failed to consider these crucial grounds while passing the order.Consequently, the High Court allowed all the writ petitions, quashing the impugned order passed by the appellate authority. The matter was remanded back to the appellate authority to decide the question of delay afresh without being influenced by the previous order. All the writ petitions were allowed and disposed of accordingly.