2023 (8) TMI 1629 - HC - GST

GST Registration Cancellation Writ Petition Upheld: Statutory Delay Condoned, Costs Imposed for Reconsideration

M/s Godavari Projects Private Limited, Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Patamata circle (Goods and Service Tax Officer (State Taxes) Vijayawada, The Additional Commissioner (ST) Vijayawada, State of Andhra Pradesh, The Union of India, New Delhi

HC allowed writ petition challenging GST registration cancellation. Despite appeal being filed beyond prescribed period, court condoned delay due to ... Cancellation of petitioner's GST Registration - non-filing of returns for the successive periods of six months - Appeal dismissed on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT:- It is evident that in the present case, the impugned order passed on 11.01.2023 was duly placed on the web portal on the very same day. However, petitioner filed e-appeal on 06.06.2023 with a delay of one month twenty-four days and the appellate authority rejected the appeal on the ground that it is filed beyond the condonable period. As can be seen from the impugned order dated 27.06.2023, the 1st respondent has rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond the condonable period of one month twenty-four days. In that view of the matter and as the GST Tribunal has not been constituted as per the provision of the Act, so as to enable the petitioner to pursue his further legal remedies, in the interest of justice, it is considered apposite to allow the writ petition and condone the delay in filing the appeal and remit the matter back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration, however with certain conditions imposed. Petition allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary legal issue considered in this judgment is whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration due to non-filing of returns and the subsequent rejection of the appeal due to filing beyond the condonable period is justified under the provisions of the A.P. GST Act, 2007. The court also considered whether the lack of an Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the APGST Act, 2017, constitutes a denial of an effective legal remedy for the petitioner.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant Legal Framework and PrecedentsThe legal framework involves Section 29(2) of the A.P. GST Act, 2007, which governs the cancellation of GST registration due to non-compliance, such as the non-filing of returns. Additionally, Section 112 of the APGST Act, 2017, which pertains to the constitution of the Appellate Tribunal, is relevant as it impacts the petitioner's ability to seek further legal recourse.Court's Interpretation and ReasoningThe Court noted that the petitioner's GST registration was canceled due to the non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner attempted to appeal this cancellation, but the appeal was rejected because it was filed beyond the condonable period. The Court acknowledged the absence of an Appellate Tribunal, which left the petitioner without an effective remedy. The Court referenced a similar case decided by the High Court for the State of Telangana, where the matter was remitted back to the primary authority for reconsideration due to the absence of an Appellate Tribunal.Key Evidence and FindingsThe Court found that the impugned order of cancellation was uploaded on the web portal on the same day it was issued, but the petitioner failed to access it timely. The petitioner eventually filed the required returns up to the date of cancellation, demonstrating an intention to comply. The appeal was filed with a delay of one month and twenty-four days, which was beyond the condonable period, leading to its rejection by the appellate authority.Application of Law to FactsThe Court applied the legal principles established in the precedent from the High Court for the State of Telangana, recognizing that the absence of an Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the APGST Act, 2017, effectively deprived the petitioner of a legal remedy. The Court decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal, allowing the petitioner another opportunity to have the case reconsidered by the primary authority.Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes opposed the writ petition but suggested that if the Court were inclined to allow it, suitable terms should be imposed. The Court balanced the interests of justice with procedural compliance by imposing a condition of costs on the petitioner for the delay in filing the appeal.ConclusionsThe Court concluded that in the interest of justice, the writ petition should be allowed, the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and the case should be remitted back to the primary authority for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner paying costs.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held that due to the absence of the GST Appellate Tribunal, it is just and proper to allow the writ petition and condone the delay in filing the appeal. The Court imposed a condition that the petitioner must pay costs of Rs. 20,000/- before the Appellate Authority within one week from the date of receipt of the order. Upon payment, the Appellate Authority is directed to restore the appeal and pass necessary orders in accordance with the law.Core Principles EstablishedThe judgment establishes the principle that in the absence of a statutory appellate body, such as the GST Appellate Tribunal, courts may intervene to ensure that parties are not left without a remedy. It also underscores the importance of balancing procedural compliance with the interests of justice.Final Determinations on Each IssueThe Court determined that the petitioner's delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and the matter should be remitted back to the primary authority for reconsideration, subject to the condition of paying costs. This decision ensures that the petitioner has an opportunity to have the merits of their case reviewed, despite procedural delays.