GST registration cancellation remanded for fresh hearing due to non-constitution of appellate tribunal, opportunity of hearing mandated

HC held that, in view of the absence of a constituted GST Appellate Tribunal in Telangana and following its earlier precedent, the matter required reconsideration by the primary authority. The impugned orders cancelling the petitioner's GST registration for alleged non-filing of returns and rejecting the statutory appeal were set aside. HC directed the jurisdictional authority to provide the petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing, reconsider the justification for cancellation of registration afresh, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. The writ petition was accordingly allowed by way of remand.

---

---

Issues:
Cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns, dismissal of appeal due to limitation, absence of GST Tribunal in Telangana.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a proprietorship firm dealing with air conditioners, faced cancellation of GST registration by respondent No.4 for not filing returns for six months. Despite the petitioner's response, the registration was canceled on 10.12.2020. An appeal under Section 107 of the Act was made to respondent No.1, but it was dismissed on 11.01.2023 due to being beyond the limitation period. As there is no GST Tribunal in Telangana, a writ petition was filed challenging the cancellation.

The issue raised in the petition was previously addressed in a similar case where the Court remanded the matter back to the primary authority for reconsideration and a new order after providing the petitioner with a hearing opportunity. The Court highlighted the provisions of Section 107 of the CGST Act regarding the appeal period and the authority's discretion to extend it by one month for sufficient cause. Emphasizing the importance of providing a remedy to the petitioner, the Court decided to remand the matter to respondent No.2 for a fresh decision considering the petitioner's grievances.

In line with the previous decision, the Court set aside the orders of respondent No.4 and respondent No.1, remanding the case to respondent No.4 for a fresh decision following the law. The respondent was directed to grant a fair hearing to the petitioner during the reconsideration process, allowing the submission of GST returns as required by law. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and any related miscellaneous petitions were closed as a consequence of the judgment.

---