GST registration restoration ordered with seven-day compliance deadline for returns and tax deposits

The HC exercised extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to dispose of a petition concerning GST registration and appeal delay condonation. The court directed the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority for GST number registration within seven days, with the Authority required to restore the number immediately upon completion of formalities. The petitioner was ordered to file returns and deposit taxes, penalty, and interest within seven days, with the order becoming void if compliance failed within the stipulated period.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Competence of the Appellate Authority to condone delay beyond thirty days under Section 107(4) of the Act of 2017.
2. High Court's power under Article 226 to condone delay in exceptional circumstances.
3. Specific cases of delay in filing appeals under the Act of 2017.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of the Appellate Authority to Condon Delay Beyond Thirty Days:

The primary issue addressed in the judgment is whether the Appellate Authority under Section 107(4) of the Jammu & Kashmir Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, can condone delays in filing appeals beyond the statutory limit of thirty days after the initial three-month period. The court reaffirmed its previous decision, stating that the appellate authority lacks the power to entertain appeals filed beyond four months from the date of communication of the decision or order. Sub-section (1) of Section 107 prescribes a three-month limitation period, and Sub-section (4) allows for a maximum extension of thirty days if sufficient cause is shown. The legislative intent, as interpreted by the court, is to restrict the appellate authority's discretion to this thirty-day period, thereby excluding the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

2. High Court's Power Under Article 226 to Condon Delay:

The court further examined whether it could exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to condone delays beyond the statutory period. The judgment clarified that while statutory prohibitions are significant, they do not preclude the High Court from intervening in cases where applying the delay-barring statute would result in gross injustice. Each case must be assessed on its specific facts and circumstances to determine if an exception should be made.

3. Specific Cases of Delay in Filing Appeals:

- WP(C) No. 1898/2024: The petitioner filed an appeal six months and five days after the order was communicated, citing personal challenges related to caring for a specially-abled child. The court found no legal disability that prevented timely filing and ruled that the petitioner's negligence did not warrant condonation of delay under exceptional circumstances.

- WP(C) No. 1825/2024: The appeal was filed seven months and six days after the order, with no application for condonation of delay or reasons provided. The court held that the case did not meet the threshold for exceptional circumstances to justify delay condonation.

- WP(C) No. 1562/2024 & WP(C) No. 1443/2024: Both cases involved significant delays beyond four months. The court permitted the petitioners to approach the Assessing Authority with evidence of GST deducted at source for re-examination, without delving into the merits of the assessment orders.

- WP(C) No. 1566/2024: The petitioner filed the appeal after six months and twenty-one days with no application for delay condonation. The court found no exceptional circumstances to warrant interference.

- WP(C) No. 2628/2023: The petitioner, an illiterate individual, filed the appeal over seven months late, citing inability to access online notices. The court reiterated that statutory timelines must be respected, and no exceptional circumstances justified delay condonation.

- WP(C) No. 639/2024: The petition involved a GST registration cancellation. The court directed the petitioner to comply with tax and penalty requirements for registration restoration, aligning with past similar cases, without addressing the broader legal issue of maintainability under Article 226.

In conclusion, the court emphasized adherence to statutory timelines while acknowledging its discretionary power to intervene in exceptional cases to prevent injustice. However, the specific cases reviewed did not meet the criteria for such intervention.

---