Writ jurisdiction in GST cancellation matters can survive statutory delay limits where genuine hardship is shown.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can still be invoked against GST registration cancellation even where the appellate authority lacks power to condone delay beyond the statutory period under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The cancellation was based on non-furnishing of bank details, and the belated appeal was explained by the death of the chairman and delayed knowledge by the new office-bearer. The High Court noted that a rigid refusal to consider genuine cases may affect the right to carry on business and revenue interests, and it quashed the cancellation order while remitting the matter for fresh decision after response to the show cause notice and furnishing of bank details.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cancellation of GST registration and the rejection of the belated appeal could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction despite the appellate authority having no power to condone delay beyond the period prescribed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The cancellation order was founded on non-furnishing of bank details. The appeal was filed late after the petitioner explained that the delay occurred because the chairman had died and the subsequent office-bearer came to know of the matter later. The appellate authority had no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the statutory period. Even so, the Court followed its earlier approach in similar GST registration cancellation matters, noting that a rigid refusal to consider genuine cases may affect the constitutional right to carry on business and may also prejudice revenue. In such circumstances, the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not curtailed by the statutory limitation on appellate condonation power.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was quashed and the matter was remitted for a fresh decision by the competent authority after the petitioner responds to the show cause notice and furnishes the bank details. The challenge succeeded in favour of the petitioner.

---