2022 (4) TMI 1289 - Commissioner - GST

GST registration cancellation appeal dismissed for filing beyond statutory time limit under Section 107

Shri Ramu Lal Sharma Versus Superintendent, CGST Range-XXIX, Division-F, Jaipur

The Commissioner (Appeals) Central GST, Jaipur dismissed an appeal filed against registration cancellation order on grounds of time limitation. The ... Maintainability of appeal - time limtation - appeal has been filed within the prescribed time-limit or not - appeal filed against the order for cancellation of Registration to be decided are proper or not - HELD THAT:- Though the delay in filing the appeal is condonable only for a further period of one month provided that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal is shown and the delay of more than one month is not condonable under the provisions of sub section (4) of Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. It is also found that the appellant has not submitted any ground for not filing of appeal within the stipulated period. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant on 17.11.2021 against the impugned order dated 21.11.2019 by delay of more than one month from the normal period prescribed under Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. It is also found that though the delay in filing the appeal is condonable only for a further period of one month provided that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal is shown and the delay of more than one month is not condonable under the provisions of sub section (4) of Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Thus, the appellant has filed this appeal beyond the prescribed period that too after expiry of further one month's period in terms of sub section (4) of Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 which could be condoned by the undersigned. Thus, it is clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow an appeal which is filed beyond the prescribed period - since the appeal is filed after expiry of the prescribed period of three months and a further period of one month which may be condoned by the undersigned, the appeal deserves to be rejected on the grounds of limitation without going into the merits of the case. Appeal dismissed. Issues:- Filing of appeal beyond prescribed time limit under Section 107(1) of CGST Act, 2017.- Whether the appeal filed against the order for cancellation of Registration is proper.Analysis:1. The appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the Order in Original passed by the adjudication authority for cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns. The appellant cited reasons for the delay in filing the appeal, mentioning that the accountant did not provide login details, hindering the filing of returns for two years.2. The Appellate Authority examined the appeal's timeliness as per Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The appellant filed the appeal beyond the prescribed period, seeking condonation for the delay. The Authority noted that the delay of more than one month is not condonable under the Act unless sufficient cause is demonstrated. The appellant did not provide grounds for the delay in filing the appeal within the stipulated period.3. Referring to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order concerning the extension of limitation periods due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Appellate Authority considered the circular issued by CBIC regarding the extension of timelines under GST Law. The Authority emphasized that the extension granted by the Supreme Court was applicable to appeals filed before specific authorities against quasi-judicial orders.4. Citing a Supreme Court judgment in a similar case, the Authority highlighted that the appellate authority cannot entertain appeals filed beyond the prescribed period, as per Section 35 of the CGST Act, 2017. The judgment emphasized the limitation on the authority's power to condone delays beyond the specified timeframe.5. Consequently, the Appellate Authority concluded that since the appeal was filed after the expiry of the prescribed period and the additional condonable period, it must be rejected on grounds of limitation without delving into the case's merits. The appeal was thus rejected based on the limitation issue, and the case was disposed of accordingly.