TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1203
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Application Reference Number (ARN) AA080523024310T, whereby the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled with retrospective effect; (ii) To quash and set aside the order dated 10.06.2026 passed by respondent No. 4 (the Appellate Authority), whereby the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as being barred by limitation; (iii) To direct the respondents to restore the petitioner's GST registration and permit the petitioner to regularize the GST compliances by discharging the applicable tax, interest, late fee, penalty, and any other statutory liabilities, if any; and (iv) To direct respondent No. 3 to reconsider the matter relating to the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration and to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 2) Concisely, the case of the petitioner is that he is the sole proprietor carrying on the business of construction under the name and style of "Ashapura Construction" and is registered under the provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) and Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (RGST Act, 2017) since 01.07.2017. The respondent No.3 issued a show-cau....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns and has undertaken to discharge all statutory liabilities in accordance with law. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of: (i) Molana Construction Company Vs. Central Goods & Service Tax Department & Ors., [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12076/2024], decided on 26.07.2024, (ii) RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7260/2025], decided on 02.07.2025, (iii) Govind Traders Vs. Union of India & Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10107/2025], decided on 29.10.2025, (iv) M/s M R Traders Vs. Union of India & Ors., [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4558/2025], decided on 07.01.2026, (v) Mehtab Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21148/2025], decided on 18.03.2026, (vi) M/s Infinite EV Solutions Vs. Deputy Commissioner, [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4291/2024], at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur decided on 07.07.2026, (vii) M/s Saini Construction Company Vs. State of Raj. & Ors., [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7664/2024], at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur decided on 17.07.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the condonable period. Therefore, the Appellate Authority rightly dismissed the appeal as being barred by limitation. According to the respondents, there is no merit in the writ petition. 9) Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration with effect from the date on which the petitioner first committed the default cannot, in the strict sense, be regarded as an order of retrospective cancellation. It is contended that an order of cancellation of GST registration can be said to be retrospective only when the cancellation is made with effect from the date anterior to period of default. In such a situation, the authority is required to assign specific reasons for giving retrospective effect to the cancellation which is not the case in hand. It is further submitted that at the stage of issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 29 of the RGST Act, 2017, the proper officer is only required to indicate the proposed action. The authority is neither required nor expected to refer proposed action, as that would amount to pre-judging the matter before adjudication. It is also contended that neither the RGST Act, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., reported in (2020) 19 Supreme Court Cases 681, (ii) M/s Multi Trading Agencies Drangbal Vs. UnionTerritory of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr., [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.58716/2024], decided on 17.02.2025, (iii) M/s Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner ofCentral Excise, Jamshedpur & Ors., [Appeal (Civil) No.5949/2007], decided on 14.12.2007 and the decision of coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of:- (i) M/s Mateshwari Construction & Traders Vs. Commissioner (Appeal) of CGST, [D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7901/2025], decided on 22.04.2025 (ii) M/s Rudraksh Collection Vs. Joint Commissioner(Appeal), RGST Department & Ors., [D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.15575/2024], decided on 23.09.2024, (iii) Bharti Marbles & Granites & Ors. Vs.Superintendent, Central Goods and Service Tax, [D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.20843/2024], decided on 19.08.2025, (iv) Ashok Verandani Vs. Central Board of IndirectTaxes & Customs & Ors, [D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2430/2024], at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur decided on 01.03.2024. 13) We have considered the rival submissions of counsel for both the parties and carefu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e date of cancellation whether or not such tax and other dues are determined before or after the date of cancellation. (4) The cancellation of registration under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be a cancellation of registration under this Act. (5) Every registered person whose registration is cancelled shall pay an amount, by way of debit in the electronic credit ledger or electronic cash ledger, equivalent to the credit of input tax in respect of inputs held in stock and inputs contained in semifinished or finished goods held in stock or capital goods or plant and machinery on the day immediately preceding the date of such cancellation or the output tax payable on such goods, whichever is higher, calculated in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that in case of capital goods or plant and machinery, the taxable person shall pay an amount equal to the input tax credit taken on the said capital goods or plant and machinery, reduced by such percentage points as may be prescribed or the tax on the transaction value of such capital goods or plant and machinery....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h such omission or incorrect particulars are noticed, subject to payment of interest under this Act: Provided that no such rectification of any omission or incorrect particulars shall be allowed after the due date for furnishing of return for the month of September or second quarter following the end of the financial year, or the actual date of furnishing of relevant annual return, whichever is earlier. (10) A registered person shall not be allowed to furnish a return for a tax period if the return for any of the previous tax periods has not been furnished by him." 16) A reading of Section 39(1) of the RGST Act, 2017 makes it clear that every registered person, other than an Input Service Distributor, a non-resident taxable person, or a person paying tax under Sections 10, 51, or 52 of the Act, is required to furnish return, for every calendar month, in the prescribed manner, giving details of inward and outward supplies of goods or services or both, input tax credit availed, tax payable, tax paid, and such other particulars as may be prescribed. Such return is required to be furnished on or before the twentieth day of the month succeeding the relevant calendar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....void of merit. There is no provision under the RGST Act, 2017 requiring the issuance of a separate show-cause notice merely because the order of cancellation is proposed to operate retrospectively. Section 29 of the RGST Act, 2017 requires only that a show-cause notice be issued before taking the action of cancellation of registration. Such notice is required to inform the registered person of the alleged non-compliances constituting the basis for the proposed cancellation and not the precise nature or extent of the consequential action that may ultimately be taken. Therefore, the said contention is rejected. 20) The other contention relates to the validity of the proceedings culminating in the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration and the extent of this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to condone the delay in filing the statutory appeal and remand the matter to the Appellate Authority for adjudication on merits. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in M/s Molana Construction Company (cited supra), decided on 26.07.2024, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court, afte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. (cited supra) arose out of a challenge to an assessment order. In that case, the assessment order had attained finality as the assessee had failed to avail the statutory remedy of appeal within the period of limitation prescribed under the relevant statute. Dealing with the challenge, the Apex Court in para nos. 14, 15 & 17 of the said judgment held as follows:- "14. In the backdrop of these facts, the central question is : Whether the High Court ought to have entertained the writ petition filed by the respondent? As regards the power of the High Court to issue directions, orders or writs in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same is no more res integra. Even though the High Court can entertain a writ petition against any order or direction passed/action taken by the State under Article 226 of the Constitution, it ought not to do so as a matter of course when the aggrieved person could have availed of an effective alternative remedy in the manner prescribed by law (see Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad and also Nivedita Sharma v. COAI. In Thansingh Nathmal v. Supt. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up." 15. We may usefully refer to the exposition of this Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, wherein it is observed that where a right or liability is created by a statute, which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute must only be availed of. In para 11, the Court observed thus : (SCC pp. 440-41) "11. Under the scheme of the Act, there is a hierarchy of authorities before which the petitioners can get adequate redress against the wrongful acts complained of. The petitioners have the right to prefer an appeal before the Prescribed Authority under subsection (1) of Section 23 of the Act. If the petitioners are dissatisfied with the decision in the appeal, they can prefer a further appeal to the Tribunal under sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Act, and then ask for a case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xx 17. The principle underlying the dictum in this decision would apply proprio vigore to Section 31 of the 2005 Act including to the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Notably, in this decision, a submission was canvassed by the assessee that in the peculiar facts of that case (as urged in the present case), the Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, so that complete justice can be done. This argument has been considered and plainly rejected in the following words : (ONGC case, SCC pp. 4851, paras 12-16) "12. In A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, while explicating and elaborating the principles under Article 142, Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as his Lordship then was) opined thus : (SCC p. 656, para 50) "50. ... The fact that the rule was discretionary did not alter the position. Though Article 142(1) empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order to do complete justice between the parties, the court cannot make an order inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. No question of inconsistency between Article 142(1) and Article 32 arose. Gajendragadkar, J., speakin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or 482 CrPC or all of them put together. The power under Article 142 is at an entirely different level and of a different quality. Prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot, ipso facto, act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142. Such prohibitions or limitations in the statutes might embody and reflect the scheme of a particular law, taking into account the nature and status of the authority or the court on which conferment of powers - limited in some appropriate way - is contemplated. The limitations may not necessarily reflect or be based on any fundamental considerations of public policy. Shri Sorabjee, learned Attorney General, referring to Garg case, said that limitation on the powers under Article 142 arising from "inconsistency with express statutory provisions of substantive law" must really mean and be understood as some express prohibition contained in any substantive statutory law. He suggested that if the expression "prohibition" is read in place of "provision" that would perhaps convey the appropriate idea. But we think that such prohibition should also be shown to be based on some underlying fun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....preme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India, has ruled that there is no conflict of opinion in Antulay case or in Union Carbide Corpn. case with the principle set down in Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commr. Be it noted, when there is a statutory command by the legislation as regards limitation and there is the postulate that delay can be condoned for a further period not exceeding sixty days, needless to say, it is based on certain underlined, fundamental, general issues of public policy as has been held in Union Carbide Corpn. case. As the pronouncement in Chhattisgarh SEB v. CERC, lays down quite clearly that the policy behind the Act emphasising on the constitution of a special adjudicatory forum, is meant to expeditiously decide the grievances of a person who may be aggrieved by an order of the adjudicatory officer or by an appropriate Commission. The Act is a special legislation within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act and, therefore, the prescription with regard to the limitation has to be the binding effect and the same has to be followed regard being had to its mandatory nature. To put it in a different way, the prescription of limitation in a case of present natu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....statutory remedy, the High Court may direct that the period spent in bona fide prosecuting the writ petition be taken into consideration for the purpose of condonation of delay before the Appellate Authority. However, such a power cannot be exercised where the writ petition itself is filed after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal. In such cases, the High Court cannot, as a matter of course, disregard the legislative mandate and make the provision of limitation otiose and entertain the writ petition so as to circumvent the statutory scheme. Any such exercise of jurisdiction would run contrary to the law laid down by the three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited & Ors., reported in (2017) 5 SCC 42. The words "a matter of course" used in second situation in Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. (cited supra) does not completely prohibit invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but such jurisdiction cannot be exercised in a manner inconsistent with the legislative intent. If a writ is i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ticle 226/227 of the Constitution of India merely because it has been filed after the expiry of the period prescribed for filing a statutory appeal but not as a matter of course. However, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot disregard the statutory scheme of limitation and entertain such writ petitions and condone the delay and remand back the case to appellant authority to decide appeal on merits. The statutory period prescribed for availing the appellate remedy cannot be circumvented by invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is true that in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, this Court may interfere with the original order notwithstanding the expiry of the period of limitation for filing the statutory appeal, but not as a matter of course. However, interference can be justified only in exceptional circumstances such as where an order has been passed by completely disregarding the principles of natural justice or inherent lack of jurisdiction is clearly established. In the absence of such circumstances, a writ petition cannot ordinarily be entertained so as to defeat the legislative intend....