Delayed GST Registration Appeal Gets Second Chance: Procedural Fairness Trumps Technical Barriers in Landmark Ruling

HC allowed writ petition challenging GST registration cancellation. Despite delayed appeal, court directed primary authority to reconsider case, provide personal hearing, and pass order within two weeks. Ruling emphasized procedural fairness and lack of alternative remedy due to unconstituted GST Tribunal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Cancellation of GST registration by the 1st respondent.
2. Dismissal of appeal by the 2nd respondent due to delay.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to challenge the cancellation of their GST registration by the 1st respondent. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file returns for six months prior to the issuance of the show-cause notice. The petitioner contended that the cancellation was illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, contrary to Section 29(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner appealed the cancellation, but the appeal was dismissed by the 2nd respondent due to a delay of 134 days beyond the condonable period.

2. The petitioner, through their counsel, argued that there were valid reasons for the non-filing of returns and that the appeal dismissal was solely based on a technical ground of delay. The counsel urged the court to remit the matter back to the primary authority for reconsideration, citing a similar decision by the Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana in a previous case. On the other hand, the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes opposed the writ petition, emphasizing that the appeal was filed beyond the condonable period, justifying the dismissal by the 2nd respondent.

3. The High Court, after examining the records and the precedent from a similar case, acknowledged that the GST Tribunal had not been constituted as per the provisions of the Act, leaving the petitioner without an alternative remedy. In the interest of justice, the court allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter back to the 1st respondent for reconsideration. The court directed the primary authority to re-examine the petitioner's case, provide a personal hearing, and pass an appropriate order expeditiously within two weeks from the date of the court's order.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness and timely consideration of the petitioner's case, directing the primary authority to re-evaluate the matter in accordance with the law.

---