2025 (7) TMI 1195 - HC - GST

Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - time limitation - appeal against cancellation filed beyond prescribed time limit - HELD THAT - The Appellate Authority has relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Jamshedpur 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as also the Tribunal being creatures of Statute are not vested with the jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the permissible period provided under the statute. The period up to which the prayer for condonation can be extended is statutorily provided. Relying upon the said judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court it appears to this Court that the Appellate Authority has rightly taken a view that the appeal preferred before him was barred by limitation. There are no reason to interfere with the impugned order - This writ application is dismissed.

Summary

ISSUES:

Whether the cancellation of GST registration without providing an opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice under the CGST Act, 2017.Whether an appeal against cancellation of GST registration filed beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 is maintainable.Whether the Appellate Authority has jurisdiction to condone delay in filing appeal beyond the statutorily prescribed period under the CGST Act, 2017.Whether restoration of GST registration is warranted upon filing of delayed returns and application for revocation of cancellation.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The cancellation of registration was validly effected through an ex parte order after issuance of show cause notice via the AIO Portal in accordance with Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, despite the petitioner's contention of non-receipt of notice by email or official address.The appeal against cancellation was dismissed on the ground of limitation, as the appeal was filed after the expiry of the prescribed period of 90 days and even beyond the extended period permissible under the statute; the Appellate Authority correctly held that it was "barred by limitation."The Appellate Authority and Tribunal, being creatures of statute, do not possess jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the permissible period provided under the statute, as affirmed by the Supreme Court precedent cited.The petitioner's failure to file returns for a continuous period exceeding six months justified initiation and subsequent cancellation of registration under the CGST Act, 2017.The writ petition seeking restoration of GST registration and condonation of delay in filing revocation application is dismissed for lack of merit.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the statutory framework under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically Sections 29(2)(c) relating to cancellation of registration and Section 107 governing appeals against such orders.The Court relied on binding Supreme Court precedent establishing that appellate authorities have no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the statutorily prescribed limitation period, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to limitation timelines.The Court emphasized that non-filing of statutory returns for over six months constitutes sufficient ground for cancellation of GST registration, and procedural compliance with issuance of show cause notice through the designated portal satisfies requirements of notice.No unique interpretation or doctrinal shift was adopted; the Court affirmed established legal principles governing limitation and procedural fairness under the CGST Act, 2017.