Ganesh Majoor Sahakari Sanstha LTD Through Its Chairman Suresh Piraji Shirale vs. The Union Of INDIA Through Commissioner And Others

Held

The Court held that while the appellate authority under Section 107 of the GST Act indeed lacks the power to condone delays beyond the stipulated time, this Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, can intervene in peculiar circumstances. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's explanation for the delay, citing the death of its chairman, as plausible. It noted that the absence of power to condone delay, even in genuine cases, could obstruct the fundamental right to carry on business guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Referencing its previous decisions, particularly in Rohit Enterprises, the Court emphasized that cancellation of GST registration on technicalities can adversely affect the State's revenue and that such matters should be approached pragmatically. Following the principle that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be restricted by statutory provisions to bar remedies, the Court decided to entertain the petition. The impugned order of cancellation was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the original authority for a fresh decision on merits after the petitioner replies to the show cause notice and furnishes bank details. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, Shri. Ganesh Majoor Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., engaged in supplying labour, challenges the cancellation of its GST registration by Respondent No. 4 on June 13, 2023. The cancellation was based on the failure to furnish bank details as required by Rule 21(d) read with Rule 10A of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner explains that the show cause notice dated May 31, 2023, could not be responded to due to the death of its chairman. The successor chairman, unaware of the facts, only learned of the issue after the cancellation order. This led to a delayed appeal filed on August 7, 2024, before Respondent No. 3, the appellate authority, which lacked the power to condone such a significant delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether this Court can intervene and grant relief when the appellate authority lacks the statutory power to condone the delay in filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, particularly when the delay is substantial and the petitioner cites the death of its chairman as a reason? The Petitioner argued that there is a void in the statutory provisions regarding delayed appeals, and the appellate authority cannot consider causes beyond the statutory period. They contended that the absence of power to condone delay affects the fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Petitioner relied on the consistent approach of this Court in remitting matters for consideration on merits rather than dismissing them solely on grounds of delay, citing the adverse impact on both the individual and the revenue. The Revenue argued that in the absence of statutory power, the appellate authority could not entertain the appeal. They cited several division bench decisions of this Court, including Sanjeev Suresh Desai Vs. Union of India and Ors., M/s. B.T. Ghuge Civil Engineer and Contractor Vs. The Union of India and others, and Rohit Enterprises Vs. The Commissioner, State GST and others, to support their contention that the appeal could not be entertained due to the lack of power to condone delay. They also opposed the petition on the ground that the cancellation was not illegal, as the petitioner admitted to not furnishing bank details.