M/S Abhithri Constructions vs. Office Of The Commissioner Of Central Tax (Appeals-Ii)

Held

The Court acknowledged that the respondent authorities were not at fault in passing the impugned orders based on the available facts and procedures. However, considering the peculiar circumstances presented by the petitioner, specifically the death of her husband who managed the business and his prior illness, which led to her inability to participate in the proceedings and file the appeal in time, the Court found that remitting the matter back would serve the interest of justice. The Court set aside the order dated 28.06.2024 passed by Respondent No. 5 (rejecting the appeal on limitation) and the order dated 30.03.2022 passed by Respondent No. 6 (cancelling the GST registration). The matter was remanded back to Respondent No. 6 with a direction for the petitioner to appear on 19.12.2024. Respondent No. 6 was directed to hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. The ratio decidendi is that exceptional personal circumstances, if genuinely impacting compliance, can warrant a remand even if procedural lapses have occurred, provided the authorities are directed to re-adjudicate.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Abithri Constructions, had its GST registration cancelled by Respondent No. 6 on 30.03.2022, due to failure to file six-monthly returns. The petitioner appealed this decision before Respondent No. 5, but the appeal was rejected on grounds of limitation, as per the order dated 28.06.2024 (Annexure-A). The petitioner contended that the non-filing of returns and the delay in filing the appeal were due to the untimely death of her husband on 21.07.2022, who managed the business affairs. She stated that she was unable to attend to business matters due to his death and his prior illness. The petitioner sought to have the impugned orders set aside and the matter remitted back to Respondent No. 6.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders cancelling the GST registration and rejecting the appeal on grounds of limitation should be set aside, considering the petitioner's submission of personal difficulties due to her husband's death and illness. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the non-filing of six-monthly returns and the subsequent delay in filing the appeal were directly attributable to the death of her husband, who managed the business, and his prior illness. She claimed that due to these personal circumstances, she was unable to participate in the proceedings before Respondent No. 6 and subsequently faced difficulties in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. She further submitted that if given an opportunity, she would comply with all GST obligations, including filing pending returns and paying any penalties or interest. She prayed for the matter to be remitted back to Respondent No. 6 for a fresh consideration. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent authorities. However, it notes that 'no fault can be found on part of the respondent authorities in passing the impugned orders'.