Court upholds GST registration cancellation without hearing, citing failure to file returns and late appeal.

The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the cancellation of GST registration without a hearing. The court found that the relaxation of the limitation period due to COVID-19 did not apply in this case, as the cancellation occurred before the pandemic. The cancellation was deemed valid under Section 29(2)(c) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, as the petitioner failed to file returns. Additionally, the petitioner's late appeal filing beyond the prescribed limitation period was not excused. The court concluded that the cancellation order did not violate principles of natural justice and was within the Assistant Commissioner's jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of GST registration without a hearing.
2. Application of the Supreme Court's relaxation of the limitation period due to COVID-19.
3. Applicability of Section 29(2)(c) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
4. Failure to file an appeal within the prescribed limitation period.
5. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to scrutinize the cancellation order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Cancellation of GST Registration Without a Hearing:
The petitioner argued that the cancellation of their GST registration by the Assistant Commissioner on 21.09.2019 was done without providing an opportunity for a hearing, rendering the order legally invalid. The petitioner contended that this lack of due process violated principles of natural justice.

2. Application of the Supreme Court's Relaxation of Limitation Period:
The petitioner sought to extend the period of limitation based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Writ Petition (Civil) No.03 of 2020, which provided relaxation from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the court noted that the show-cause notice was issued on 09.09.2019, and the cancellation order was passed on 21.09.2019, well before the pandemic. The court concluded that the relaxation period did not apply to the petitioner's case.

3. Applicability of Section 29(2)(c) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017:
The court examined the provisions of Section 29(2)(c), which allows for the cancellation of registration if the taxpayer fails to file returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner admitted to not filing returns due to financial difficulties. The court found that the Assistant Commissioner acted within his jurisdiction under Section 29(2)(c) in canceling the registration.

4. Failure to File an Appeal Within the Prescribed Limitation Period:
The petitioner did not file an appeal within the three-month period prescribed under Section 107(1) of the Act. The appeal was filed on 10.04.2021, significantly beyond the limitation period, which expired on 19.01.2020. The court emphasized that the limitation period expired before the COVID-19 lockdown, making the petitioner's reliance on the Supreme Court's relaxation period inapplicable.

5. Jurisdiction of the High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The petitioner argued that the High Court could still scrutinize the principal order of cancellation under Article 226, even if the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner cited a full bench judgment of the Gujarat High Court in "Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs. Union of India." The court analyzed the exceptions provided by the Gujarat High Court for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, including lack of jurisdiction, excess of power, procedural flaws, and violation of natural justice.

The court found that none of these exceptions applied to the petitioner's case. The Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction, followed the procedure by issuing a show-cause notice, and the petitioner failed to respond. Therefore, the court concluded that the cancellation order did not violate principles of natural justice and was within the Assistant Commissioner's powers.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the appeal was rightly dismissed on the grounds of limitation, and the High Court could not scrutinize the cancellation order under Article 226. The petitioner's failure to file returns and the subsequent cancellation of registration were upheld as valid actions under the applicable legal provisions.

---