2023 (6) TMI 941

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s writ petition. 2. The petitioner is a firm engaged in direct marketing. The petitioner had a GST registration. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner's business got affected and was prevented from filing the returns on time. The respondents, by Ext.P2 order, cancelled the GST registration. Even though the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the 1st respondent, by Ext.P4 order, the appeal was rejected on the ground of delay. Exts.P2 and P4 are arbitrary and unjustifiable. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; Sri. Biju C.Abraham, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Thushara James, the learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or in Ext.P4 order warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. 6. By Ext.P2 order, the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled on 10.08.2022. The petitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal on 07.03.2023, i.e., after 209 days, which is undoubtedly beyond the statutory period fixed under Section 107 (4) of the Act. 7. Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 reads thus: (4) "The Appellate Authority may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months or six months, as the case may be, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month". 8. Interpreting an analogous provision....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay only up to 30 days after the expiry of 60 days which is the normal period for preferring appeal. Therefore, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Commissioner and the High Court were therefore justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days' period". 9. In CCE & Customs v. Hongo India (P) Ltd. [(2009) 5 SCC 791], the Honourable Supreme Court, again interpreting Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, reiterated its earlier view by holding thus: "31. In this regard, it is useful to refer to a recent decision of this Court in Punjab Fibres Ltd. [(2008) 3 SCC 73] The Commissioner of Customs, Cent....