TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30 (1) of the Act, for the purposes of revocation of an order of cancellation of the registration, provided it satisfies the condition provided under Section 30 of the Act. The knowledge, which the petitioner attributes, that he could not obtain the knowledge, for a period of 477 days, in fact smacks a sense of irresponsibility for an assessee, who is facing an order of cancellation of its registration rendered on 21.09.2019, and particularly when the assessee i.e. the petitioner was, attributing its responsibility on the Advocate, without there being any pleading to the said effect, that in case he was misguided or mislead by the Counsel; as to what action he has taken against the Counsel, who had misinformed him or had not informed him about the order of the cancellation of his registration on 21.09.2019. Hence, the plea of inability to prefer an appeal within the specified period of limitation being on account of the Covid 19 pandemic, is not sustainable, and is not accepted by this Court, as period of preferring an appeal, expired much prior to declaration of Lockdown by the Government of India. Since the appeal itself has been dismissed on the ground of limitation, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 019, had issued the show-cause notice prior to taking an action of cancellation of registration of the petitioner. 3. At this stage, this Court feels it to be necessary to point out, that the shelter, which has been taken by the petitioner for the purpose of enlarging the period of limitation it was based on the pretext of the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court which was rendered in Writ Petition (Civil) No.03 of 2020, where the relaxation from the period of limitation has been provided for the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021, one of the issues for consideration would be as to whether at all the said relaxation could be made applicable under the facts and circumstances, of the instant case, where the petitioner, was already noticed much prior in time i.e. on 09.09.2019, though the exception, which has been carved out by the counsel in the argument and the pleadings, is by shouldering and shifting the responsibility on the Advocate, who was appointed on behalf of the petitioner to file his returns, and reply to the notice issued dated 09.09.2019, which was not done so by the petitioner or his counsel thus engaged, within the prescribed period, and further on account of the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act, the legislature under the Act, had itself provided an inbuilt mechanism, which was available to the Assessee, while the petitioner could have invoked Section 30 (1) of the Act, for the purposes of revocation of an order of cancellation of the registration, provided it satisfies the condition provided under Section 30 of the Act. Though, it may not be relevant, to make a reference to Section 30 of the Act, at this stage, for the reason being, that it is an admitted case of the petitioner, that no such application for revocation of the cancellation of the registration, was ever filed by the petitioner within the time provided under law, the reason being, on the pretext, that the knowledge of the order of cancellation was not given to him, so there was no occasion for the petitioner to have filed an application for revocation. Ultimately, the petitioner preferred an appeal as provided under Section 107 of the Chapter 18 of the Act. The appellate provision is extracted hereunder:- 107 (l) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the Central Goods and Services Tax Act by an adjudicating authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... racted above), the period of limitation as prescribed, therein, of preferring of an appeal under Section 107 of the Act, could be extended, for a further period of thirty days by the Appellate Authority itself, but since in the present case the appeal was preferred even much beyond the period of limitation even provided under Section 107 (4) of the Act, which has expired on 19.01.2020. The reference of this date of 19.01.2020, becomes relevant, because this expiry of period of limitation, was even much prior to the issuance of the notification issued by the Government of India, imposing the restrictions of lockdown due to Covid 19 pandemic, and hence the shelter being taken in pursuance to the orders of the Hon ble Apex Court, since was made applicable even after the expiry of the period of limitation provided under Section 107 (4) of the Act, the principles from the Hon ble Apex Court judgment would not be attracted in the instant case. 7. Admittedly, in the instant case the petitioner has preferred an appeal on 10.04.2021, as against the impugned order of 21.09.2019, the petitioner submitted, that all the pending returns, along with the tax, interest and late fee, till the dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an order of cancellation of its registration rendered on 21.09.2019, and particularly when the assessee i.e. the petitioner was, attributing its responsibility on the Advocate, without there being any pleading to the said effect, that in case he was misguided or mislead by the Counsel; as to what action he has taken against the Counsel, who had misinformed him or had not informed him about the order of the cancellation of his registration on 21.09.2019. Hence, the plea of inability to prefer an appeal within the specified period of limitation being on account of the Covid 19 pandemic, is not sustainable, and is not accepted by this Court, as period of preferring an appeal, expired much prior to declaration of Lockdown by the Government of India. 10. In order to challenge the two orders, the petitioner s Senior Counsel, has submitted that even if the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation, because of the provisions under sub-section (4) of Section 107 of the Act, the period of limitation could not have been extended beyond the period of one month; still the principal order of cancellation of GST Registration could still be scrutinized by the High Courts , while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crutinizing the order dated 21.09.2019 itself, that the principal order has been passed by the respondent No.2, i.e. the Assistant Commissioner, GST, was without jurisdiction. Hence, this principle laid down by the full bench of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court from the said perspective would not be applicable under the circumstances of the present case. (2) The other exception which has been carved out by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court, is when a situation emerges that the Assistant Commissioner, who has cancelled the registration or any other authority, has assumed the jurisdiction, within itself, to pass the impugned order. It is yet again not a case, ever argued or revealed from the impugned action, even that the impugned order of 21.09.2019, as when it has been passed by the Additional Commissioner, was by way of an assumption of jurisdiction, which was otherwise not statutorily vested in him. (3) The next exception which has been argued, and which has been left open by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court, to be exercised by High Courts, in order, to venture into the propriety of the principal order of cancellation of the registration, is that the authority cancelling the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (6) The another exception, which has been carved out, by the full Bench of Gujarat High Court, as argued is that when the order itself apparently, on the face of it shows, that it was suffering from the procedural flaw. Which cannot be a case, in the present case, for the reason being, admittedly according to the petitioner himself, that before resorting to the procedure for cancellation of the registration, the petitioner was issued with the show-cause notice on, 09.09.2019. In case if the allegations of non communication of the said show cause notice is shifted on the Advocate, in fact, it is not an exception, which has been dealt with by the full Bench of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court, in which the said case could be brought within an ambit of non adherence of the procedural flaw, by the Assessing Authority, cancelling the registration; Because non communication of the information, i.e. the show cause notice, which the petitioner contends to have been admittedly imparted to the Counsel, would mean, that it was an internal flaw in his own arrangement, which was made by the petitioner himself for pursuing the proceedings, before the Assistant Commissioner with reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
