Ms Thattacooperative Agri Service Society vs. State Of Punjab Through Additional Chief Secretary Punjab

Held

The Court held that while the Appellate Authority was correct in rejecting the appeal on the grounds of limitation, the delay in this case deserved to be condoned. The Court relied on its previous decision in "M/s Vasudeva Engineering v. The Union of India and others". The reasoning was that the powers to hear an appeal under Section 107 of the Act should not preclude a person from seeking a hearing through a writ petition for condonation of delay, particularly when the cancellation of GST registration has significant cascading effects on other businesses. The Court found that no reply from the respondents was required given the legal nature of the issue and the prior judgment. The Court condoned the delay. The operative direction was to the Appellate Authority (Deputy Commissioner, States Tax (Appeal), Ludhiana Division, Ludhiana) to expeditiously decide the appeal on its merits within two months, providing an opportunity of hearing to both parties. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s The Thatta Co-operative Agri Service Society, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging an order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the respondents cancelling its GST registration. The petitioner stated that it did not become aware of this order, leading to a delay in filing an appeal against it. The Appellate Authority had rejected the appeal solely on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner sought relief from the High Court, referencing a previous judgment in "M/s Vasudeva Engineering v. The Union of India and others" (decided on 24.10.2024). The respondents are the State of Punjab and others, including the Appellate Authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can condone the delay in filing an appeal against an order cancelling GST registration, despite the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal on limitation grounds? (Question of law, turning on the interpretation of Section 107 of the CGST Act and the inherent powers of the High Court). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that it was unaware of the cancellation order, causing the delay. They relied on the High Court's judgment in "M/s Vasudeva Engineering v. The Union of India and others" which held that the powers to hear an appeal under Section 107 would not be subject to strict time prescriptions when a writ petition is filed for condonation of delay, especially when the cancellation of registration has cascading effects. They also stated that the pre-deposit amount for the appeal had been submitted. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue or state respondents.