M/S Supreme Wooden Industries vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Held

The Court held that the powers to hear an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, are not strictly subject to the filing of an appeal within the prescribed time. The Court found that a person should not be deprived of the right to appeal solely due to delay, especially when such delays are related to business affairs. The Court condoned the delay, referencing its previous decision in M/s Vasudeva Engineering's case. The reasoning was that the provisions of the Act are meant to provide relief to businessmen, and an inability to file an appeal due to delay should not render them remedy-less. The Court also considered the cascading effect of GST registration cancellation on other businesses. The Court directed the Appellate Authority to expeditiously decide the appeal within two months, providing an opportunity of hearing to both parties. The Court noted that while the Appellate Authority might not have the power to condone delay, the writ petition served as a mechanism for seeking condonation.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Supreme Wooden Industries, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The issue before the Court concerned the cancellation of GST registration and the subsequent inability to file an appeal within the prescribed time. The petitioner sought relief from the Court, arguing that they were precluded from filing an appeal due to delays related to business affairs. The Court noted that the issue had been previously adjudicated in a similar case, M/s Vasudeva Engineering v. The Union of India and others, decided on 24.10.2024. The respondents in this case are the Union of India and others, including the State of Haryana.

Key Issues

1. Whether the powers to hear an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, are subject to the strict filing of an appeal within the prescribed time, thereby precluding a person from seeking condonation of delay through a writ petition. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that if delays occur due to business affairs, they should not be left without a remedy. They contended that the cancellation of GST registration has cascading effects on other businesses, making it essential for an efficacious remedy to be available. They relied on the principle that a businessman should not be precluded from filing an appeal due to unavoidable delays. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment records that counsel for the parties were ad idem that the issue was covered by a previous judgment. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondents regarding the condonation of delay or the applicability of Section 107.