Atul Dnyaneshwar Harale Prop. Shriniwas Biofuels vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

Facts

The Petitioner, Atul Dnyaneshwar Harale, proprietor of Shriniwas Biofuels, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the State Tax Officer (Respondent No. 3) and an order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals) (Respondent No. 4). The Petitioner sought to quash these orders and alternatively sought a writ of mandamus directing the State Tax Officer to reinstate the Petitioner's earlier GST registration. The Petitioner's GST registration was cancelled. The appeal filed before the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals) was rejected on the grounds of limitation, as it was filed beyond the prescribed period. The Petitioner argued that the Deputy Commissioner has no authority to condone the delay.

Held

The Court held that the provisions of the GST enactment should not be interpreted to deny citizens their right to carry on trade and commerce, which is a constitutional guarantee. The Court referred to its own decision in Rohit Enterprises, which held that while the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax may not have the power to condone delay beyond 30 days, constitutional courts, in exercise of their writ jurisdiction under Article 226, can look into the matter to ensure that fundamental rights are not curtailed. The Court reasoned that the objective of limitation provisions is to terminate litigation, not to divest a person of their rights. In this case, the cancellation of registration was a matter that should not be unduly burdened by limitation, especially when no accrued right of the State would be adversely affected. The Court also cited the Supreme Court's observation in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. that the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 cannot be restricted by any Act. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the order of cancellation of GST registration and the appellate order. The Petitioner's registration was held to be valid from 01.03.2020, 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.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax has the authority to condone the delay in filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, when the appeal is filed beyond the prescribed period? 2. Whether the rejection of the Petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of limitation, without considering the merits of the cancellation of registration, is sustainable in light of constitutional guarantees? The Petitioner contended that the Deputy Commissioner should have considered the appeal on merits, and that the right to carry on trade and commerce under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed by procedural shortcomings. The Petitioner relied on various High Court judgments, including Rohit Enterprises V/s. The Commissioner State GST, M/s. Sambhaji Multi Services V/s. The Commissioner State GST, Shri Ganesh Majoor Sahkari Sanstha Limited V/s. The Union of India, Neo Built V/s ETO Cum Proper Officer, and ENS Enterprises V/s. The Superintendent, GST. The Revenue (Respondent State) argued that there was a delay of two years in filing the appeal and that the Deputy Commissioner has no authority to condone such delay, thus finding no fault with the impugned order.