Shri Pavan vs. The Additional Commissioner And Anr

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. It held that while the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation, the petitioner's assertion of bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause for not attending the personal hearings warranted a justice-oriented approach. The Court found that the dismissal of the appeal solely on limitation did not result in a merger of the original cancellation order, thus preserving the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227. The Court quashed both the order of cancellation of GST registration dated April 2, 2023, and the appellate order dated September 30, 2024. The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner's GST registration within four weeks, conditional upon the petitioner filing all pending GST returns and paying up-to-date taxes within the same period. The Court explicitly stated that this order was made in the peculiar facts and circumstances and should not be treated as a precedent.

Facts

The petitioner, Shree Sevalal Traders and Contractors, obtained GST registration on March 4, 2019. On March 2, 2023, the Superintendent of Central Tax issued a show-cause notice for cancellation of GST registration. The petitioner replied but could not attend the personal hearing on subsequent dates due to bonafide reasons and unavoidable circumstances. Consequently, the Superintendent passed an order on April 2, 2023, canceling the petitioner's GST registration. An appeal was filed belatedly before the Additional Commissioner, which was dismissed as barred by limitation on September 30, 2024. Aggrieved by both orders, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can set aside the order of cancellation of GST registration and the appellate order dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation, despite the petitioner's failure to attend personal hearings and file the appeal within the prescribed time? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that their inability to attend personal hearings was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause. They further contended that the dismissal of their appeal solely on the grounds of limitation should not preclude the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction, as the appellate order did not result in a merger with the original cancellation order. The petitioner also submitted that they would file pending GST returns and pay up-to-date taxes if the registration was restored. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondents.