TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10.2019 and in terms of Section 107 the petitioner was required to file the appeal within three months from the date of communication of the order and further condonable period available was one month therefrom. In the present case total period lapsed on 14.02.2020 - The Hon ble Supreme Court of India in PRAKASH CORPORATES VERSUS DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED [ 2022 (2) TMI 1268 - SUPREME COURT ] took cognizance of unprecedentedly unfavourable and unpleasant situation faced by entire humanity from or around the month of December 2019. The Appellate Authority, while passing order on 07.10.2021, had no occasion to take into consideration the orders of the Hon ble Court more particularly Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, [ 2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER ]. An identical fact-situation arose before the Hon ble Gujarat High Court [ 2022 (4) TMI 751 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ], where the Appellate Authority did not entertain appeal on the ground of limitation qua cancellation of registration being made on 10.07.2019. It is pertinent to say that writ petition is maintainable challenging the order in appeal, albeit the petitioner is entitled to carry the matter before the Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said Act, has cancelled the registration (Annexure-4). 2. Fact leading the petitioner to approach this Court to beseech invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction under the provisions of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, is that by referring to reply dated 31.08.2019 submitted by the petitioner in pursuance of terms of Show Cause Notice dated 21.08.2019, the Superintendent of Ganjam-I Circle in Berhampur-I Range without assigning any reason proceeded to cancel the registration, GSTIN: 21ALPPP8146E2ZY on 15.10.2019 invoking provisions of Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act with effect from 15.10.2019 inasmuch as there was non-filing of returns for consecutive period of six months. 2.1. Instead of seeking revocation of cancellation of registration under Section 30 of the CGST Act before the proper officer, assailing aforementioned order dated 15.10.2019, the petitioner preferred appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act on 05.08.2021 with a delay of around 660 days which came to be rejected on 07.10.2021. 2.2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that while the Appellate Authority made an observation in his Appellate Order that application for revoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yers. Due to lack of awareness regarding nuances of strict compliance of new taxation policy, they could not file their returns in time. Such difficulties were multiplied by outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-associated corona virus (SARS-CoV) leading to COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, such situation was declared force majeure which led to promulgation of Section 168A by way of the CGST (Amendment) Act, 2020 granting power to the Government to extend time limit in special circumstances. 2.6. It is, therefore, argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the Appellate Authority was not powerless to grant opportunity to the petitioner to deposit tax, interest coupled with penalty and late fee and relegate him to approach the Registering Authority under Section 30 of the CGST Act by condoning the delay as has been done by this Court in very many cases, namely in the case of Nirmani Engineers and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. The Commissioner of CT GST, Odisha and Others, W.P.(C) No.15934 of 2021, wherein vide Order dated 05.05.2021, this Court has observed as follows: 2. Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for Opposite Parties appearing on an ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Appellate Authority by passing a common order, as a consequence of which taxpayers even though are ready to deposit tax, interest and penalty with late fee and also furnish return(s), they are deprived of availing such advantage as is bestowed in the aforementioned notifications. Since the Bar sought to address the issue, this Court asked Sri Rudra Prasad Kar, Advocate to render assistance in this regard. 3.1. Mr. Rudra Prasad Kar, learned Advocate has placed the following suggestions by way of short note dated 25.08.2022: GST law being, a New Act, assessees are facing the difficulties in switching to procedural compliance electronically through internet on the GST Web-Portal. Considering the hardship faced by the assessees and more specifically due to COVID-19 pandemic, various amnesty schemes were introduced by the Government of India to ease the technical and procedural complicacies faced by the assessees. The provisions of the GST enactments and the rules made thereunder, read with various clarifications issued by the Central Government, pursuant to the decision of the GST Council and the Notification issued thereunder, also makes it clear that the intention i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registration from the date of passing of the order. 2. Accordingly, the GST Authorities/Concerned Officers may be directed to consider the application of revocation and allow the assessees to comply with the statutory requirements namely filing of returns, deposit of tax, interest, penalty and late fee within a further period of one month. 3. Authorities to take a pragmatic view and restore the R.Cs. It is submitted that the Government will not be put to any pecuniary loss/revenue loss, rather the above suggestions and directions of this Hon ble Court will be in the larger interest of trade, commerce and economic growth of the nation. 4. Mr. Rudra Prasad Kar, learned Advocate, brought attention of this Court to the Judgment of Hon ble Madras High Court rendered in the case of Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center Vrs. The Appellate Authority and Another, W.P.(C) No.25048 of 2021, etc. etc., vide Order dated 31.01.2022 reported at 2022 (61) GSTL 515 (Mad) to demonstrate that in the said Judgment a batch of matters qua certain taxpayers, having failed to furnish returns, registration certificates had been cancelled in the years 2018 and 2019 in terms of Section 29(2)(c), and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce indirect taxes are levied under the CGST Act and the OGST Act. The levy of tax on goods and services is being made by the Central Government under the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 and concurrent power has been conferred on the State Government to levy goods and services tax under the provisions under the OGST Act. Relevant provisions involved for facilitating adjudication of the issue raised in the present case do require to be mentioned. Section 29 Cancellation or suspension of registration.- (1) *** (2) The proper officer may cancel the registration of a person from such date, including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit, where,- (a) a registered person has contravened such provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder as may be prescribed; or (b) a person paying tax under Section 10 has not furnished returns for three consecutive tax periods; or (c) any registered person, other than a person specified in Clause (b), has not furnished returns for a continuous period of six months; or (d) any person who has taken voluntary registration under sub-section (3) of Section 25 has not commenced business within six ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be registered or his registration is liable to be cancelled, the proper officer shall issue an order in Form GST REG-19, within a period of thirty days from the date of application submitted under Rule 20 or, as the case may be, the date of the reply to the show cause issued under sub-rule (1), cancel the registration, with effect from a date to be determined by him and notify the taxable person, directing him to pay arrears of any tax, interest or penalty including the amount liable to be paid under sub-section (5) of Section 29. (4) Where the reply furnished under sub-rule (2) is found to be satisfactory, the proper officer shall drop the proceedings and pass an order in Form GST REG-20: Provided that where the person instead of replying to the notice served under sub-rule (1) for contravention of the provisions contained in clause (b) or clause (c) of subsection (2) of Section 29, furnishes all the pending returns and makes full payment of the tax dues along with applicable interest and late fee, the proper officer shall drop the proceedings and pass an order in Form GST-REG 20. (5) The provisions of sub-rule (3) shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the legal h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred to in clause (b) of sub-rule (2), issue a notice in Form GST REG-23 requiring the applicant to show cause as to why the application submitted for revocation under sub-rule (1) should not be rejected and the applicant shall furnish the reply within a period of seven working days from the date of the service of the notice in Form GST REG-24. (4) Upon receipt of the information or clarification in Form GST REG-24, the proper officer shall proceed to dispose of the application in the manner specified in sub-rule (2) within a period of thirty days from the date of the receipt of such information or clarification from the applicant. 7. The Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works Vrs. State of Gujarat 2 Other(s), R/Special Civil Application No. 18860 of 2021, vide Judgment dated 24.02.2022 discussed the provisions enshrined for registration with reference to the rules framed thereunder in the following manner: 8.1 Scheme of the Act: *** The related provisions for certificate of registration and its cancellation, under the said Act are as under: i. Section 2(107) defines the term taxable person means a person who i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 along with statutory provision, the reasons for cancellation can be culled out as under: a) a person registered under any of the existing laws, but who is not liable to be registered under the GST Act; b) the business has been discontinued, transferred fully for any reason including death of the proprietor, amalgamated with other legal entity, demerged or otherwise disposed of; c) there is any change in the constitution of the business; d) the taxable person (other than the person who has voluntarily taken registration under sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the CGST Act, 2017) is no longer liable to be registered; e) a registered person has contravened such provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder; f) a person paying tax under composition levy has not furnished returns for three consecutive tax periods; g) any registered person, other than a person paying tax under composition levy has not furnished returns for a continuous period of six months; h) any person who has taken voluntary registration under sub-section (3) of Section 25 has not commenced business within six months from the date of registration; i) registra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shed 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. vii. 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 as may be prescribed or the tax on the transaction value of such capital goods or plant and machinery under Section 15, whichever is higher. viii. The cancellation of registration shall not affect the liability of the person to pay tax and other dues for any period prior to the date of cancellation whether or not such tax and other dues are determined before or after the date of cancellation. 9.3 At the same time, the statute also provides for revocation of cancellation: i. When the registration has been cancelled by the Proper Officer (Superintendent of Central Tax) on his own motion and not on the basis of an application, then the registered person, whose registration has been cancelled, can submit an application for revocation of cancellation of registration, in Form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the applicant. vi. The revocation of 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 revocation of cancellation of registration under Central Goods and Services Tax Act. 10. Thus, upon appreciation of the scheme of Act, where specific forms have been prescribed at each stage right from registration, cancellation and revocation of cancellation of registration, the same are to be strictly adhered to. At the same time, it is equally important that the proper officer empowered under the said Act adheres to the principles of natural justice. 11. At the outset, we notice that it is settled legal position of law that reasons are heart and soul of the order and noncommunication of same itself amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing, resulting in miscarriage of justice. *** 7.1. A conjoint reading of the provisions referred to above juxtaposed with provisions contained in Section 39 read with Rule 61 would clearly indicate that the petitioner is bound to file return for the month concerned on or before the 20th of the succeeding mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under general law of limitation or under any special (both Central and State) due to the onset of Covid-19 virus. Hon ble Supreme Court in the said order has directed that in computing the period of limitation for any appeal, the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.0021 shall stand excluded. Further, it has been held in the said order that in cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have limitation period of 90 days from 15.3.2021. 10.1 It is also noted that the Hon ble Supreme Court in its order dated 27.04.2021 has restored its earlier order dated 08.03.20 21 in view of the extraordinary situation caused by the second outburst of COVID-19 virus. Hon ble Supreme Court has ruled that in continuation of the order dated 8th March, 2021 direct that the period(s) of limitation, as described under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, whether condonable or not shall stand extended till further orders. Hon ble Supreme Court has further clarified that the period from 14th March, 2021 till furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Notification No. 76/2018 Central Tax New Delhi, the 31st December, 2018 G.S.R.1253(E), In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 128 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) (hereafter in this notification referred to as the said Act), the Central Government, on the recommendations of the Council , and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue No. 28/2017 Central Tax, dated the 1st September, 2017 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R. 1126 (E), dated the 1st September, 2017, notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue No. 50/2017 Central Tax, dated the 24th October, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R. 1326 (E), dated the 24th October, 2017 and notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 64/2017 Central Tax, dated the 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ish the said return between the period from the 1st day of June, 2021 to the 31st day of August, 2021, the total amount of late fee under Section 47 of the said Act, shall stand waived which is in excess of five hundred rupees: Provided also that where the total amount of central tax payable in the said return is nil, the total amount of late fee under Section 47 of the said Act shall stand waived which is in excess of two hundred and fifty rupees for the registered persons who failed to furnish the return in Form GSTR-3B for the months/quarter of July, 2017 to April, 2021, by the due date but furnish the said return between the period from the 1st day of June, 2021 to the 31st day of August, 2021: Provided also that the total amount of late fee payable under Section 47 of the said Act for the tax period June, 2021 onwards or quarter ending June, 2021 onwards, as the case may be, shall stand waived which is in excess of an amount as specified in column (3) of the Table given below, for the class of registered persons mentioned in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table, who fail to furnish the returns in Form GSTR-3B by the due date, namely: - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 30 was incorporated in the respective GST enactments with effect from 1st July, 2017, there was no proviso to Section 30(1) of the Act. *** 173. Only, a single window of opportunity was given to file application within thirty (30) days for revocation of cancellation order under Section 30(1). However, right from the beginning, GST Council recognised that the GST law was new and assessees encountered the difficulties in switching to procedural compliance electronically through Internet on the GST Web-Portal. 174. Considering the hardship faced by the assessees, the GST Council in its 33rd Meeting held on 24.02.2019 took a decision. Pursuant to aforesaid decision, the Central Government, on recommendations of the GST Council, in exercise of power conferred under Section 172 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, inserted a proviso to Section 30(1) of the respective GST enactments vide Order No.5/2019-GST, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, dated 23.04.2019. Thus, Proviso to Section 30(1) of the Act read as under: Provided that the registered person who was served notice under sub-section (2) of Section 29 in the manner as provided in cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) of the Act and the remedy under proviso to the Section 30(1) of the Act had expired between 20.03.2020 to 29.06.2020 by extending the period upto 30.06.2020 vide Notification No.35/2020 Central Tax, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, dated 03.04.2020. 185. This Notification was issued in the exercise of power conferred under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 21 of the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This did not address the case of the above petitioners. 186. However, on 25.06.2020, the Central Government on the recommendations of the Council, in the exercise of power conferred under Section 172 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, issued the Central Goods and Services Tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2020 vide Order No.01/2020-Central Tax, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, dated 25.06.2020. Relevant portion of the said Notification reads as under: 1. Short title.- This Order may be called THE CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX (REMOVAL OF DIFFICULTIES) ORDER, 2020. 2. For the removal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Revenue) Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Notification No 92/2020- Central Tax New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2020 S.O. 4643(E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (2) of Section 1 of the Finance Act, 2020 (12 of 2020) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st day of January, 2021, as the date on which the provisions of Sections 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127 and 131 of the said Act shall come into force. [F.No. CBEC-20/06/04/2020-GST] 193. Parallel amendments were made to Rule 23 of the respective GST Rules and Form GST REG-21 was amended vide Notification No.15/2021- Central Tax, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, dated 18.05.2021. *** 194. The above amendment however did not address the case of the petitioners whose registrations were cancelled after 31.03.2019 and before the above amendment to the Act as Rules with effect from 01.01.2021. *** 196. These petitioners had only one option to file an application within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the order of cancellation of registration under Section 30(1) of the Act whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t day of March, 2020 to 31st day of August, 2021. Thus, the time limit for making such application stood extended up to the 30th day of September, 2021. 199. In the light of the above Notification, the Principal Commissioner has also issued clarification vide Circular No.158/14/2021-GST, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, dated 06.09.2021, while, tracing out the history, in paragraph Nos.3 and 4, it has been clarified as follows: 3. Applications covered under the scope of the said notification 3.1. The said notification specifies that where the due date of filing of application for revocation of cancellation of registration falls between 1st March, 2020 to 31st August, 2021, the time limit for filing of application for revocation of cancellation of registration is extended to 30th September, 2021. Accordingly, it is clarified that the benefit of said notification is extended to all the cases where cancellation of registration has been done under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the CGST Ac, 2017 and where the due date of filing of application for revocation of cancellation of registration falls between 1st March, 2020 to 31st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of timelines while deciding the appeal. (v) application for revocation of cancellation of registration was filed, the proper officer rejected the application and the appeal has been decided against the taxpayer- In such cases, taxpayer may file a fresh application for revocation and the officer shall process the application for revocation considering the extended timelines as provided vide the said notification. 4. It may be recalled that, with effect from 01.01.2021, proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the CGST Act has been inserted which provides for extension of time for filing application for revocation of cancellation of registration by 30 days by Additional/ Joint Commissioner and by another 30 days by the Commissioner. Doubts have been raised whether the said notification has extended the due date in respect of initial period of 30 days for filing the application (in cases where registration has been cancelled under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 29 of CGST Act, 2017) under sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the CGST Act or whether the due date of filing applications for revocation of registration can be extended further fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er GST can be broadly categorised as follows: a) Proceedings that need to be initiated or compliances that need to be done by the taxpayers: These actions would continue to be governed only by the statutory mechanism and time limit provided/ extensions granted under the statute itself. Various orders of the Hon ble Supreme Court would not apply to the said proceedings/ compliances on part of the tax payers. b) Quasi-Judicial proceedings by tax authorities:- The tax authorities can continue to hear an dispose off proceedings where they are performing the functions as quasi-judicial authority. This may inter alia include disposal of application for refund, application for revocation of cancellation of registration, adjudication proceedings of demand notices, etc. Similarly, appeals which are filed and are pending, can continue to be heard and disposed off and the same will be governed by those extensions of time granted by the statues or notifications, if any. c) Appeals by taxpayers/ tax authorities against any quasi-judicial order: Wherever any appeal is required to filed before Joint/ Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner (Appeals), Appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Vrs. Union of India and Others, CWP No.19029 of 2021, the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh vide Judgment dated 09.12.2021 taking note of Notification No.34/2021- Central Tax, dated 29.08.2021 and the Central Goods and Services Tax (Fifth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 observed as follows: 12. In our considered opinion, the interpretation sought to be placed by learned counsel appearing for respondents is unduly restricted. It cannot be lost site (sight) of that this notification was issued in view of the Covid pandemic, wherein even the Supreme Court had passed a blanket order of extending the period of limitation. Once the petitioners had already been granted benefit of the notifications dated 23.04.2019 (Annexure P-6), dated 25.06.2020 (Annexure P-7) and dated 29.08.2021 (Annexure P-10), the time limit for making such application should have extended up to the 30th day of September, 2021. 8.8. In the context of limitation fixed for filing written statement under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the case of Prakash Corporates Vrs. Dee Vee Projects Ltd., (2022) 5 SCC 112 = (2022) 1 SCC (L S) 771 = 2022 SCC OnLine SC 180 it has been stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 019, the entire humanity faced a situation which was unprecedentedly unfavourable and unpleasant to almost all the persons and the institutions. It was the outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic that engulfed practically the entire globe; and the highly contagious virus called SARS-CoV-2 started playing havoc with its rapid transmission from one person to another. Covid-19 carried with it the scary possibilities of irretrievable damage to the respiratory systems, even leading to deaths. In fact, the number of fatalities due to this infection had been beyond imagination with survivors also living under a constant threat. The unprecedented health emergencies due to highly transmissible Covid-19 Virus led the administrations to take various containment measures, including those of travel restrictions and lockdowns as also of isolating the infected persons while putting their close contacts in quarantine. 26. We need not elaborate on the havoc created by Covid-19 but the relevant aspect for the present purpose is that with Covid-19, the movement of persons and working of almost all the institutions landed in such difficulties which were neither foreseen nor guarded against. 27. When ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2020 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 9 SCC 468], this Court enlarged the scope of initial order in relation to the timelines fixed in Section 29-A and Section 23(4) of the 1996 Act. Significantly, Section 23(4) of the 1996 Act mandates that the statement of claim and defence shall be completed within a time period of six months. Yet further, it was also provided that the time for completing the process of compulsory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 shall stand extended for 45 days after lifting of lockdown. 27.4. On 08.03.2021 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 5 SCC 452 = (2021) 3 SCC (Civ) 40 = (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 615 = (2021) 2 SCC (L S) 50], suggestions were made before this Court about lifting of lockdowns and likely return of normalcy and, therefore, this Court considered it proper to dispose of the said suo motu petition with specific directions that while computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 would stand excluded. Though the said order dated 08.03.2021 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said MA No. 665 of 2021 was disposed of on 23.09.2021 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 18 SCC 250 = 2021 SCC OnLine SC 947] with this Court issuing directions similar to those contained in the order dated 08.03.2021 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 5 SCC 452 = (2021) 3 SCC (Civ) 40 = (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 615 = (2021) 2 SCC (L S) 50] but while providing that in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded. 27.7. We are not elaborating on other directions issued by this Court but, when read as a whole, it is but clear that the anxiety of this Court had been to obviate the hardships likely to be suffered by the litigants during the onslaughts of this pandemic. Hence, the legal effect and coverage of the orders passed by this Court in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 cannot be unnecessarily narrowed and rather, having regard to their purpose and object, full effect is required to be given to such orders and directions. [To complete the scenario, we may indicate in the passing that even after we had heard this matter, there had been re-surge of Covid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts in enlargement of time, over and above the period prescribed. 28.1. Having regard to the purpose for which this Court had exercised the plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and issued necessary orders from time to time in SMWP No. 3 of 2020, we are clearly of the view that the period envisaged finally in the order dated 23-9- 2021 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 18 SCC 250 = 2021 SCC OnLine SC 947] is required to be excluded in computing the period of limitation even for filing the written statement and even in cases where the delay is otherwise not condonable. It gets perforce reiterated that the orders in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 were of extraordinary measures in extraordinary circumstances and their operation cannot be curtailed with reference to the ordinary operation of law. 28.2. In other words, the orders passed by this Court on 23.03.2020 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 = (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] , 06.05.2020 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 9 = (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 799], 10.07.2020 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 9 SCC 468] , 27.04.2021 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble provisions of law as also the mandate of the Constitution Bench, this Court referred to the orders until then passed in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 and held that the limitation for filing written statement would be deemed to have been extended. 30. This Court, inter alia, observed and held as follows: [SS Group (P) Ltd. Vrs. Aaditiya J. Garg, (2022) 11 SCC 445 = 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1050], SCC paras 10-11) 10. In the present matter, it is an admitted fact that the period of limitation of 30 days to file the written statement had expired on 12.08.2020 and the extended period of 15 days expired on 27.08.2020. This period expired when the order dated 23.03.2020 passed by this Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 = (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801 was continuing. 11. In view of the aforesaid, in our opinion, the limitation for filing the written statement in the present proceedings before the National Commission would be deemed to have been extended as it is clear from the order dated 23.03.2020 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 = (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] that the extended period of limitation was applicable to all pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condone the delay beyond a period of 45 days. Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed. In that case, it was indisputable that even while counting from 19.12.2019, the period of 45 days expired on 02.02.2020 and another period of 45 days, for which the Appellate Tribunal could have condoned the delay, also expired on 18.03.2020. To overcome this difficulty, the appellants relied upon the aforesaid order dated 23.03.2020 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 = (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801]. 33.1. This Court observed that the appellants were not entitled to take refuge under the above order in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 because what was extended was only the period of limitation and not the period up to which delay could be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute. This Court said thus: [Sagufa Ahmed Vrs. Upper Assam Plywood Products (P) Ltd., (2021) 2 SCC 317 = (2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 178], SCC p. 322, para 17) 17. What was extended by the above order [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 = (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] of this Court was only the period of limitation and not the period up to which delay can be condo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 17 SCC 231 = 2021 SCC OnLine SC 373], this Court restored the operation of the order dated 23.03.2020 in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 = (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801. Putting all these factors together, we are unable to accept the submissions made on behalf of the respondent that because of earlier appearance or prayer for adjournment, the appellant-defendant would not be entitled to the relaxation available under the extraordinary orders passed by this Court. 8.9. Noteworthy here to take note of the Order dated 10.01.2022 passed in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2022) 3 SCC 117 = (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 580 = (2022) 2 SCC (Civ) 46 = (2022) 1 SCC (L S) 501 = 2022 SCC OnLine SC 27, which requires to be reproduced hereunder: 1. In March 2020, this Court took suo motu cognizance of the difficulties that might be faced by the litigants in filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other quasi proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any special laws (both Central and/or State) due to the outbreak of the Covid-19 Pandemi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of MA No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions: 5.1. The order dated 23.03.2020 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 = (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 5 SCC 452 = (2021) 3 SCC (Civ) 40 = (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 615 = (2021) 2 SCC (L S) 50], 27.04.2021 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 17 SCC 231 = 2021 SCC OnLine SC 373] and 23.09.2021 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 947] , it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasijudicial proceedings. 5.2. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. 5.3. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority and Another, 2022 (61) GSTL 515 (Mad) unflinchingly discussing the purport of amendment(s) to the provisions of the statute, the Judgment dated 09.12.2021 of Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Aarcity Builders Private Limited Vrs. Union of India and Others, CWP No.19029 of 2021 and the notifications with the clarifications issued by the Central Government persuades this Court to conclude that there has been pious intention to facilitate the business to be carried out so as to enable smooth payment of taxes and not to debar the taxpayers, but to bring them back to GST fold. Therefore, this Court, being not oblivious of fundamental rights conferred on every citizen under Article 19(1)(g) vis- -vis Article 14, is one with the view expressed in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center and Aarcity Builders Private Limited (supra). While subscribing to the observation and interpretation, this Court feels it apposite to quote the following from the judgment in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center (supra): 209. Thus, the intention of the Government has been to allow the persons like the petitioners to file a fresh application and to process the application for revocation of the cancellati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and subjects. The constitutional guarantee is unconditional and unequivocal and must be enforced regardless of the defect in the scheme of the GST enactments. The right to carry on trade or professoin also cannot be curtailed. Only reasonable restriction can be imposed. To deny such rights would militate against their rights under Article 14, read with Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8.12. Vide Order dated 17.08.2022 Madras High Court in M. Mallika Mahal Vrs. The Commissioner of Central GST Central Excise, W.P. No.10663 of 2022, c. while ascertaining the position as to finality of Judgment in Tvl Suguna Cutpiece Center (supra) has observed as follows: 7. All other petitioners have approached this Court direct, by way of writ petition, seeking the relief of restoration. A learned Single Judge of this Court in a batch of writ petitions in WP.Nos.25048 of 2021 and batch has, by way of an order dated 31.01.2022, considered the cases of identically placed petitioners as before me. In the cases of those petitioners as well, orders of revocation had been passed and some of the petitioners had approached the assessing authority in terms of Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng for restoration of registration was filed in July 2021 i.e. during the period when the order of the Supreme Court extending the limitation was in operation. More importantly, the writapplicants have paid the requisite amount towards tax on the basis of self-assessed liability on 06.09.2021. Since the registration of certificate of the writ applicants came to be cancelled solely on the ground of non-filing of the returns, which was on account of non-payment of tax and the writapplicants now having paid such outstanding tax, the registration certificate of the writ-applicants should be ordered to be restored so that they are able to continue with their business. 8.14. Refusing to decide the challenge against order of cancellation of registration on the ground of limitation would be counterproductive approach as the taxable person is deprived to carry on business in the sense that no tax invoice can be raised. This would ultimately impact the recovery of taxes and thereby, the action of the authority would work against the interest of revenue. Therefore, the opposite parties are required to take a pragmatic view in the matter. The introduction of GST regime presupposes hassle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... medy of appeal is provided under the CPC itself. While holding so, it is observed and held in paragraphs 11 to 13 as under:- 11. Secondly, the High Court ought to have seen that when a remedy of appeal under Section 104(1)(i) read with Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, was directly available, Respondents 1 and 2 ought to have taken recourse to the same. It is true that the availability of a remedy of appeal may not always be a bar for the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. In A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu Vrs. S. Chellappan, (2000) 7 SCC 695, this Court held that though no hurdle can be put against the exercise of the constitutional powers of the High Court, it is a well-recognised principle which gained judicial recognition that the High Court should direct the party to avail himself of such remedies before he resorts to a constitutional remedy . 12. But courts should always bear in mind a distinction between (i) cases where such alternative remedy is available before civil courts in terms of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, and (ii) cases where such alternative remedy is available under special enactments and/or statutor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court was that on account of failure to file returns for a continuous period of six months, which was mandatory under the Uttarakhand GST Act, the registration got cancelled on 21.09.2019 and the appeal before the First Appellate Authority was dismissed on the ground of delay; however, the writ petition filed by petitioner/appellant was also dismissed as not maintainable. In the Appeal against Order in Writ Petition passed by the Single Judge of said High Court while holding that writ petition was maintainable, the Court observed the following: 4) Thus it is apparent that the Statute does not provide any prohibition against exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by the High Court. The practice of not entertaining the writ petition, except in the cases accepted above by the Hon ble High Court, in a case where an alternative and efficacious remedy is available, is an internal mechanism, which the Court has imposed upon themselves. 5) Moreover, this issue whether a writ petition is maintainable when the limitation provided for filing an appeal is not extendable, as in this case, was considered by the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 109 of the CGST Act, there being no alternative remedy available for the petitioner to question the veracity of the order passed in the first appeal, this Court prefers to exercise its writ jurisdiction to undo prejudice and injustice caused to the petitioner. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that grave injustice would ensue if extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not exercised. In the present case scales of justice weigh in favour of the petitioner. 9.5. In the event GST registration number is not restored, the petitioner would not be in a position to raise a bill as e-invoice system has been put in place in the GST regime. So, if the petitioner is denied of revival of GST registration number, it would affect his right to livelihood (Article 21 of the Constitution of India) as also right to carry on business [Article 19(1)(g)]. If he is denied of his right to livelihood because of the fact that his GST Registration has been cancelled, and that he has no remedy of appeal especially when Appellate Tribunal has not been constituted in terms of Section 109 read with Section 112, then it would tantamount to violation of provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been undertaken through the writ applicant s Tax Consultant who were professionally engaged to undertake such task. Unfortunately, information of the returns for certain period not being uploaded, surfaced in the year 2019 and the cause explained suggest that circumstances were beyond the writ applicant s reach. In such peculiar circumstances, it was least expected of the Appellate Authority to condone the delay for filing appeal, more so, with the onset of Pandemic Covid-19, preventing further follow up action. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, the authority ought to have condoned the delay which unfortunately was not done, despite the writ applicant having made a fervent request for condonation of delay in filing appeal seeking revocation of cancellation of registration. 12. On the aforesaid analysis of factual and legal position, it is apt to set aside the Appellate Order dated 07.10.2021. As a consequence, this Court in the aforesaid circumstances thought of remitting the matter to the Appellate Authority for consideration of merits afresh. Nevertheless, this matter relates to registration of the petitioner which has been cancelled since 15.10.2019 and involves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
