Delayed appeal against cancelled GST registration allowed to proceed on merits, with costs and additional documents permitted.

The dominant issue was whether a substantially delayed statutory appeal against cancellation of GST registration should be entertained. The HC noted that the law on condonation by the appellate authority is pending before the SC, and relied on its interim approach of enabling delayed GST appeals to be decided on merits where the assessee's contentions had not been examined. Considering the length of delay and the absence of a merits adjudication on the assessee's explanation for non-filing of returns/responding to the SCN, the HC directed that the appeal be heard on merits subject to payment of costs, restored the appeal to its original number, and permitted filing of additional documents within the stipulated time.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether an appeal against cancellation of GST registration, dismissed by the Appellate Authority as time-barred, ought to be restored and directed to be decided on merits in writ jurisdiction, having regard to the extent of delay and the fact that the appellant's substantive contentions were not examined on merits.

(ii) What conditions and directions should govern such restoration, including imposition of costs and timelines for filing documents, and the requirement of a reasoned merits order after granting personal hearing.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Restoration of time-barred appeal and direction to decide on merits

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court noted the statutory appellate remedy and limitation under the GST regime, and considered the submissions regarding non-condonability of delay. The Court also took note of prior judicial approach where time was extended to avail appellate remedy, and that the question of delay/condonation is stated to be pending consideration before the Supreme Court.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court treated the delay as substantial, but placed weight on the circumstance that the appellant's contentions had not been examined on merits "even before the Adjudicating Authority". In these circumstances, and notwithstanding the limitation objection, the Court considered it appropriate that the appeal be heard on merits rather than being shut out solely on limitation, subject to costs. The Court's approach reflects a balancing of limitation concerns with the need for a merits adjudication where the substantive grievance had not been evaluated.

Conclusions: The Court restored the appeal dismissed as time-barred and directed that it be heard and adjudicated on merits by the Appellate Authority, subject to payment of costs.

Issue (ii): Conditions for restoration; filing of documents; hearing and reasoned order

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court proceeded on the basis that the Appellate Authority must afford personal hearing and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law while deciding the restored appeal.

Interpretation and reasoning: To address the consequence of substantial delay while still enabling merits consideration, the Court imposed quantified costs payable to a legal services body and set a deadline for the appellant to place documents in the appeal along with proof of payment. The Court further ensured procedural fairness by directing that personal hearing be granted and that adjudication culminate in a reasoned order.

Conclusions: The appeal was restored to its original number; the appellant was permitted to file documents within the stipulated timeline along with proof of costs; the Appellate Authority was directed to give personal hearing and thereafter decide the appeal on merits by a reasoned order in accordance with law.

---