GST registration cancellation appeal dismissed as time-barred, statutory authorities cannot condone delays beyond prescribed periods

Patna HC dismissed a writ petition challenging GST registration cancellation. The petitioner filed an appeal against the cancellation beyond the prescribed time limit. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal as time-barred, relying on SC precedent in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, which established that statutory authorities like the Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal lack jurisdiction to condone delays beyond statutorily prescribed periods. The HC upheld the Appellate Authority's decision, finding the appeal was correctly dismissed for being barred by limitation. The court concluded there were no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the writ application.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the cancellation of GST registration without providing an opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice under the CGST Act, 2017.Whether an appeal against cancellation of GST registration filed beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 is maintainable.Whether the Appellate Authority has jurisdiction to condone delay in filing appeal beyond the statutorily prescribed period under the CGST Act, 2017.Whether restoration of GST registration is warranted upon filing of delayed returns and application for revocation of cancellation.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The cancellation of registration was validly effected through an ex parte order after issuance of show cause notice via the AIO Portal in accordance with Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, despite the petitioner's contention of non-receipt of notice by email or official address.The appeal against cancellation was dismissed on the ground of limitation, as the appeal was filed after the expiry of the prescribed period of 90 days and even beyond the extended period permissible under the statute; the Appellate Authority correctly held that it was "barred by limitation."The Appellate Authority and Tribunal, being creatures of statute, do not possess jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the permissible period provided under the statute, as affirmed by the Supreme Court precedent cited.The petitioner's failure to file returns for a continuous period exceeding six months justified initiation and subsequent cancellation of registration under the CGST Act, 2017.The writ petition seeking restoration of GST registration and condonation of delay in filing revocation application is dismissed for lack of merit.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the statutory framework under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically Sections 29(2)(c) relating to cancellation of registration and Section 107 governing appeals against such orders.The Court relied on binding Supreme Court precedent establishing that appellate authorities have no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the statutorily prescribed limitation period, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to limitation timelines.The Court emphasized that non-filing of statutory returns for over six months constitutes sufficient ground for cancellation of GST registration, and procedural compliance with issuance of show cause notice through the designated portal satisfies requirements of notice.No unique interpretation or doctrinal shift was adopted; the Court affirmed established legal principles governing limitation and procedural fairness under the CGST Act, 2017.

---