TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 2051
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tation Act and ensure condonation of delay beyond the period of 30 days on sufficient grounds/reasons; (iii) To quash and set aside the show cause notice dated 18.10.2023 (Annexure-5) and order dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure-6) for cancellation of registration passed by Respondent No. 4 and GSTIN of the petitioner-firm, may kindly be restored enabling the petitioner to continue to its business; (iv) To quash and set aside the order dated 08.12.2024 and summary thereof in Form GST APL-04 dated 08.12.2024 (Annexure-8) passed by Respondent No. 5 rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the cancellation order dated 06.12.2024; (v) To declare the condition and restriction of the time limit for preferring an appeal beyond the period of three months with a grace period of only one month, as prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Acts, as ultra vires and against the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 19, 21 and 265 of the Constitution of India; (vi) To issue a writ, order or direction to the Appellate Authority to hear the matter on merits treating the appeal as having been filed within the period of limitation; (vii) To ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel for the petitioner expressly gave up the challenge to the validity of the said provisions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 06.12.2023 cancelling the petitioner's GST registration is wholly arbitrary, perverse and without jurisdiction. It was urged that the Show Cause Notice dated 18.10.2023 itself was incompetent, as the pre-condition under Section 29(2)(c) of the RGST/CGST Acts read with Rule 21(h) namely non-filing of returns under Section 39(1) for a continuous period of six months was not satisfied. The petitioner had duly furnished GSTR-3B returns up to July 2023 and, therefore, on the date of issuance of the SCN, no six-month continuous default existed. Consequently, initiation of cancellation proceedings was beyond jurisdiction. 4.1. It was further submitted that the Show Cause Notice was vague and cryptic, as it did not specify the period of alleged default nor disclose any foundation for invoking Section 29(2)(c). Such a defective notice deprived the petitioner of meaningful opportunity to respond. Learned counsel submitted that the show cause notice and the cancellation order were never served upon the petitioner i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....107(4) and can direct the appellate authority to consider the appeal on merits in the interest of justice, particularly where rigid application of limitation would result in civil death of an ongoing business. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, CGST (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14658 of 2024 decided on 09.09.2024), where delay was condoned due to illness in the family, demonstrating that genuine circumstances ought to receive liberal consideration. 4.6. It was urged that the petitioner's situation stands on even firmer footing, as the delay was caused by his own medical incapacity. The petitioner, being a genuine businessman continuously conducting lawful activity, should not suffer irreversible consequences due to technicalities. Learned counsel submitted that the actions of the respondents have caused grave and irreparable injury and that restoration of registration is necessary not only to enable continuation of business but also to ensure future tax compliance and revenue to the State. 4.7. On these submissions, learned counsel prayed that the cancellation orders as well as the appellate order be quashed and the petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted condonable extension, beyond which delay cannot be condoned and Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded. The scheme of Section 107 is in consonance with these settled legislative patterns. 5.5. It was urged that the right of appeal is not an inherent or fundamental right but a statutory creation, and the legislature is competent to prescribe conditions, including rigid timelines. When the statute expressly excludes condonation beyond one month, neither the Appellate Authority nor this Court, while exercising judicial review, can rewrite the legislative mandate or enlarge the limitation period. 5.6. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the challenge to the effectiveness of service under Section 169 is unfounded, as the show cause notice, cancellation order and all communications were duly uploaded on the common portal and also sent to the registered e-mail ID and mobile number. The petitioner has not shown any compelling cause for non-compliance or for delay in filing the appeal. 5.7. It was also submitted that the petitioner's abandonment of the vires challenge further narrows the scope of the petition, and the only surviving issue relates to canc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elevant provisions of the Act within the prescribed time, in the considered opinion of this Court, appears to be genuine. 8. This Court in the above relied upon judgments while allowing the writ petitions, have issued directions to entertain the appeal on merits. 9. For the foregoing reasons and taking benefits of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, we allow the present writ petition and accordingly, set aside the order dated 26.05.2025 (Annex.5) passed by the appellate authority. The appellate authority is directed to consider and decide the appeal of the petitioner on its own merits, in accordance with law, subject to the petitioner firm depositing late fees, penalty and other statutory deposits for entertaining the appeal, as admissible." 8.2. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case, where cancellation has resulted in cessation of business activity and the statutory appeal has been rejected solely on limitation without consideration of the explanation tendered by the petitioner. 9. This Court observes that the Appellate Authority, while dismissing the petitioner's appeal as time-barred, has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pective cancellation from 01.09.2023, and the alleged violation of Section 75(4) and principles of natural justice. These are issues which are integrally connected with the merits of the cancellation proceedings and are best examined by the statutory Appellate Authority in the first instance, upon a full and fair hearing to both parties. 14. This Court finds that it would neither be appropriate nor necessary, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, to conclusively adjudicate upon the merits of the cancellation and the show cause notice at this stage, when the statutory appeal has been rejected solely on limitation and has not yet been considered on merits. Interference in writ jurisdiction is, therefore, warranted primarily to the extent of correcting the denial of an effective appellate remedy, rather than substituting this Court's view on factual and legal issues that lie within the province of the Appellate Authority. 15. This Court observes that, in similar matters concerning cancellation of GST registrations, this Court and other High Courts have, in the interest of justice and to avoid civil death of genuine businesses, directed consideration of delayed appeals on merits ....