TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 99
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the Order-In-Appeal dated 11.10.2024 (Annexure-6) and Order-In-Original dated 09.03.2023 (Annexure-3) whereby its GST registration has been cancelled; and further, issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, in the nature thereof thereby directing respondents to restore or revoke the GST registration (Annexure-1) of the petitioner. 2. Briefly speaking, case pleaded in the petition is that:- 2.1. That the petitioner is engaged in the business of executing works contract along with whole and retail trade. From the Financial Year ("FY") 2021-22, the petitioner opted for filing the quarterly GST Return under Section 39(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. 2.2. That the petitioner being unaware of the procedural requirement/compliance as prescribed under the GST laws and rules made thereunder had engaged an accountant/local advocate for GST compliance on regular basis. The accountant/local advocate of the petitioner was entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring compliance with all GST related obligations as mandated under the provisions of GST laws, including the filing of GST returns. Since, the incorporation of the firm, all legal compliances were being duly made through the accou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner but was a result of unavoidable circumstances on the part of the petitioner. 2.10. That due to the petitioner's (ie., Shri Jagdish) limited understanding of the legal compliance, an application for revocation of cancellation of registration against the cancellation order dated 09.03.2023 could not be filed within the period specified under the GST Act. 2.11. Upon becoming aware of the passing of the above order for cancellation of GST registrations, and availability of a legal remedy against the arbitrary actions of the respondent, the Petitioner promptly appointed a new lawyer/consultant and thereafter immediately filed an appeal on 18.12.2023. 2.12. However, the respondent No. 4 on 11.10.2024 (Date of uploading on portal 19.11.2024) passed the impugned appellate Order whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of being time barred as per time limit prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. 2.13. Hence, the instant writ petition. 3. A reply has been file on behalf of the respondents opposing the writ petition, inter alia, taking a stand that a show cause notice was duly issued, to which the petitioner failed to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld not be penalized for the mistake of counsel, and denial of statutory rights on this basis results in injustice. 5.3. While Section 107 of the CGST Act limits the appellate authority to condone delay only up to 30 days beyond the prescribed period, the High Court retains constitutional power under Article 226 to condone delays beyond this period in appropriate cases to prevent taxpayers from being rendered remediless. 5.4. Even the appellate authority can condone delays beyond the prescribed period when sufficient cause is shown, particularly as the Limitation Act is not expressly or impliedly excluded by Section 107 of the CGST Act. Rejection of appeals mechanically on limitation amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction. 5.5. Rejection of the appeal solely due to delay unjustifiably restricts the petitioner's fundamental right to carry on trade or business and also infringes the freedom of trade guaranteed under Article 19(1)g read with 301 of the Constitution. Inability to conduct business due to cancellation or non-restoration of GST registration violates the fundamental right to livelihood under Article 21, and appeals in such cases must be decided on merits by c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erved that if the Assessee did not avail the alternative remedy of statutory appeal even within the extended period of limitation by seeking condonation of delay then a writ petition shall not be entertained. Quite apparently, the language employed in "Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (supra)" reflects that the Court has ample powers to condone the delay in preferring the appeal. 7.For the foregoing reasons, we are inclined to entertain the present writ petition and the order dated 13th June 2024 passed by the Joint Commissioner of CGST is quashed. Consequently, the statutory appeal vide Order-in-Appeal 430 (RSG) CGST/JDR/2024is restored to its original file subject to the petitioner firm depositing late fee, penalty and other statutory deposits for entertaining the appeal." 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents relies on two subsequent Division Bench judgments/orders of this very Court passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7901/2025 and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20843/2024. He contends DB judgment in Molana, supra, was also cited therein and yet both the division benches dismissed the respective petitions. He argues that no relief ought t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the constitutional power of High Court vis-à-vis statutory limitation, nor do they analyze the legislative intent underlying the CGST Act. They are therefore fact-specific determinations and cannot be read as laying down a binding principle contrary to Molana Construction. 10. Upon a holistic consideration, it is borne out the view expresses in M/s Molana Construction Company (supra) is not diluted or contradicted by the subsequent Division Bench order/decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents. Subsequent DB orders are confined to their own facts and we therefore adopt the same view as in M/s Molana Construction Company. 11. Furthermore, three other High Courts i.e. Punjab and Haryana High Court Vasudeva Engineering vs. Union of India, reported as 2024(11) TMI 259, Calcutta High Court S.K. Chakraborty & Sons case, reported as (2024) 123 GSTR 229 : 2023 SCC Online Cal 4759 and Madras High Court Chelliah Meenambigai Vs. Commercial of CGST and Central Excise & Ors., reported as 2023 SCC Online MAD 8190 in unison have opined that statutory limitation period as outlined in Section 107 of the CGST, 2017, no doubt, is mandatory on the Appellate au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....special or local law, the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 both inclusive shall apply only insofar as and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by the special or the local law. 19. Section 107 of the Act of 2017 does not exclude the applicability of the Act of 1963 expressly. It does not exclude the applicability of the Act of 1963 impliedly also if one has to consider the provisions of Section 108 of the Act of 2017 which provides for a power of revision to the designated authority, against an order of adjudication. In case of revision a far more enlarged period of time for the Revisional Authority to intervene has been prescribed. Two periods of limitations have been prescribed for two different authorities namely, the 12 Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority in respect of the same order of adjudication. Any interference with the order of adjudication either by the Appellate Authority or by the Revisional Authority would have an effect on the defaulter/noticee. Section 107 does not have a non-obstante clause rendering Section 29(2) of the Act of 1963 nonapplicable. In absence of specific exclusion of the Section 5 of the Act of 1963 it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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." Section 107 stipulates a limitation period of three months for filing an appeal by an assessee. It further permits condonation of delay only to the limited extent of one additional month, and that too upon satisfaction of "sufficient cause." This statutory cap is absolute and admits of no elasticity in the hands of the appellate authority. If the legislative intent were to vest the Appellate Authority with an open-ended discretion to condone delay by importing the Limitation Act, the express ceiling of one month would be rendered otiose. Such an interpretation would amount to rewriting the statute and defeating the clear mandate of Parliament. Had the legislature intended the Limitation Act, 1963 to apply, it would have expressly so provided. The deliberate absence of any such provision in the CGST Act is not accidental. It is determinative. In other words, Limitation Act would apply to a special statute only if its applicability is expressly extended to it. 11.3. Moreover, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration under Section 30 and appellate remedies under Section 107. The emphasis of the statute is thus not merely punitive compliance, but regulated facilitation of economic activity. Any interpretation which renders statutory remedies illusory on hyper-technical grounds would defeat the very purpose of the enactment. 13. Cancellation of GST registration or missed appellate deadlines should not permanently debar a taxpayer from the GST framework, especially where the taxpayer intends to comply by filing returns, paying taxes, interest, and penalties, and rectifying defaults. In such cases, denial of opportunity to an assessee undermines the inclusive and facilitative objective of the GST regime. Non-restoration of GST registration in such cases also directly impairs the assessee's ability to conduct business, earn a livelihood and leads economic paralysis, thus, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by imposing disproportionate and unreasonable hardship. 14. Reverting to the case in hand, as far as explanation qua the sufficient cause leading to the delay in filing the statutory appeal in the present case, we are of the opinion that the petitioner had filed his duly....