Funmatix Ventures Private Limtied Through Its Authorized Signatory vs. The Commisioner Of GST Appeals And Others

Original PDF →

WP/7225/2025HC BombayGSTCNR HCBM03020560202523 June 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. G. AVACHAT,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NEERAJ P. DHOTE3 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The petitioner, Funmatix Ventures Private Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of its appeal by the GST (Appeals) authority. The appeal was dismissed for being filed beyond the prescribed limitation period under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner's registration was cancelled by the first officer. A show-cause notice was issued, but it was published on the official portal and not served personally on the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the notice was not effectively served, violating principles of natural justice.

Held

The Court held that the principles of natural justice were not adhered to by the authorities. While the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, does not contain a provision for condonation of delay, the Court found that the issuance of a show-cause notice solely through publication on the official portal, without personal service, did not amount to effective service. Consequently, the order of cancellation of registration by the first officer and the subsequent appellate order dismissing the appeal were set aside. The Court directed the first officer to decide the matter on its merits after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner undertook to appear before the first officer on July 8, 2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether the publication of a show-cause notice on the official portal, without personal service, constitutes effective service and adheres to the principles of natural justice, particularly when the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, does not explicitly provide for condonation of delay in filing appeals (Section 107). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the show-cause notice was not effectively served as it was only published on the official portal, and no personal notice was given. This failure to provide personal notice violates the principles of natural justice. Respondents' contention: The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the sufficiency of notice or the principles of natural justice. Their primary stance, as indicated by the dismissal of the appeal, was likely based on the limitation period.

Sections Cited

Section 107

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

3-wp7225.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7225 OF 2025 Funmatix Ventures Private Ltd., Having its Registered Office at R-3/215/A204, Aditya Sanskruti, Ambajogai Road, Latur, Maharashtra 413 512, Through Its Authorised Signatory, Khalid Saquib Abbas Khan Kayamkhani ..Petitioner Vs. 1. The Commissioner of GST (Appeals), Nashik Commissioner, Plot No.155, Sector P-34, NH Jaistha & Vaishakh, CIDCO, Nashik 422 008 2. The Additional Commissioner of GST (Appeals), Nashik Commissionerate, Plot No.155, Sector P-34, NH Jaistha & Vaishakh, CIDCO, Nashik – 422 008 3. The Superintendent of CGST, Latur, Range Latur Urban, 1st Floor, Padile Complex, Ambajogai Road, Latur, Maharashtra 4. The Assistant Commissioner of CGST Latur Latur Urban Range 1st Floor, Padile Complex, Ambajogai Road, Latur 413 513 Maharashtra ..Respondents 2025:BHC-AUG:15905-DB 2 3-wp7225 Mr.Aditya N. Sikchi and Mr.S.G.Partani, Advocate for petitioner Mr.Parikshit P. Dawalkar, Senior Standing counsel with Mr.Pratik B. Kothari, Junior Standing counsel for respondents ---- CORAM : R.G.AVACHAT AND NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 23, 2025

ORDER :-

Heard.

Issue notice to the respondents. Mr.Parikshit Dawalkar, learned senior standing counsel waives notice for the respondents.

The order impugned herein is as regards dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. The ground for rejection is the appeal to have not been filed within the period of limitation, i.e. three months besides one month in addition.

Admittedly, under the said Act, there is no provision for condonation of delay. The first Officer passed the order of cancellation of registration of the petitioner - company. A show- cause notice was issued by the concerned authority; but it was a 3 3-wp7225 notice in the nature of publishing on its official portal. No notice was served personally.

Without observing anything as to whether issuance of notice on the official portal, amounts to effective service thereof or not, only with a view to see that the principles of natural justice are adhered to by the authorities before passing the order, we are inclined to allow this petition by setting aside the order passed by the authorities, i.e. the appellate authority and the order passed by the first officer, which was under challenge in the appeal.

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (A), (B) and (C). The first officer would do well to decide the matter on its own merit, after giving the petitioner opportunity of hearing. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the first Officer on 08.07.2025. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [R.G. AVACHAT, J.]

KBP

Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.