Judicial Intervention Revives Appeal: Covid-Era Limitations Relaxed, GSTIN Registration Challenge Granted Fresh Hearing

SC allowed the writ petition challenging the dismissal of an appeal against GSTIN registration cancellation. Despite initial delay beyond statutory limitation periods, the court relied on Covid-related judicial extensions to remand the matter for substantive hearing. The appellate authority was directed to consider the appeal's merits without treating it as time-barred.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal dismissed due to delay in filing.
2. Interpretation of Section 107(1) & (4) of the CGST Act, 2017.
3. Effect of orders passed by the Apex Court on limitation periods.

Analysis:
The petitioner's appeal against the order of cancellation of GSTIN registration was dismissed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) CGST, Ranchi, citing a delay in filing beyond the prescribed time limit. The petitioner filed the appeal on 25.09.2021, after the expiry of the initial 3-month period from the date of the original order on 14.12.2019. The appellate authority rejected the appeal based on the limitation ground.

Section 107(1) of the CGST Act allows a person aggrieved by a decision to file an appeal within 3 months from the date of communication of the decision. Section 107(4) provides for a further condonable period of 1 month if sufficient cause is shown for the delay. The petitioner failed to file within the extended period, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

The Apex Court, in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, extended the period of limitation in all court proceedings, including appeals, from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. The Court held that appeals filed during this period could not be dismissed as time-barred, even without a formal application for condonation of delay. The petitioner's appeal fell within this Covid-related extension period.

In light of the Apex Court's orders, the High Court set aside the dismissal of the appeal and remanded the matter to the appellate authority for a decision on its merits. The Court clarified that its decision did not reflect on the merits of the case itself. Ultimately, the writ petition was allowed, granting relief to the petitioner.

---