Atlas Steel Through Its Proprietor Mujeebuddin Quiruddin Mohd. vs. The Commissioner State GST Bhavan And Others

Held

The Court held that while the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) may not have the power to condone delays beyond 30 days under Section 107 of the MGST Act, the constitutional courts, exercising their powers under Article 226, are not restricted by such limitations. The Court referred to its own decision in Rohit Enterprises, which held that the provisions of the GST enactment should not be interpreted to deny the right to carry on trade and commerce, and that the constitutional guarantee must be enforced. The Court reasoned that the objective of limitation provisions is to terminate litigation, not to divest a person of their rights. In cases of registration cancellation, the question of limitation should not be a deterrent, as no accrued right of the State is adversely affected. The Court found that the Petitioner deserved a chance to resume business legitimately. Therefore, the order cancelling the GST registration and the subsequent appellate order rejecting the appeal on grounds of limitation were quashed and set aside. The Petitioner's registration was deemed valid from 22.01.2022, subject to filing up-to-date returns and depositing all pending dues, interest, penalty, and late fees as per Rule 23(1) of the MGST Rules, 2017.

Facts

The Petitioner, Atlas Steel, through its Proprietor Mujeebuddin Qairuddin Mohd., filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The Petitioner sought to quash and set aside an order dated 17.08.2022 passed by the State Tax Officer cancelling its GST registration, and an order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) which rejected the Petitioner's appeal on grounds of delay. The Petitioner also sought restoration of its registration effective from 22.01.2022 and permission to file returns. The Respondents, the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner (Appeal), and State Tax Officer, opposed the petition, primarily citing a delay of 877 days in filing the appeal and the Deputy Commissioner's lack of authority to condone such a delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) has the authority to condone a delay of 877 days in filing an appeal against the cancellation of GST registration, considering the provisions of Section 107 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (MGST Act)? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the constitutional guarantee to carry on trade or profession under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India should be enforced, and that denying the revival of registration would lead to a loss of revenue for the State. They relied on the High Court's decision in Rohit Enterprises V/s. The Commissioner State GST and the Supreme Court's judgment in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. V/s. Union of India, asserting that constitutional courts' powers under Article 226 cannot be restricted by statutory provisions. Respondents' Arguments: The Respondents contended that there was a significant delay of 877 days in filing the appeal and that the Deputy Commissioner lacked the authority to condone such a delay, making the impugned order valid.