Railsys Engineers Private Limited & Anr. vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax (Appeals-Ii) & Anr.
Held
The Court held that the appellate order dated 28.06.2021 was contrary to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3/2020. The Supreme Court's orders clearly extended the limitation period, including the condonable period, from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. The prescribed period for appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, ended on 24.02.2020, with a condonable period ending on 24.03.2020. Given the Supreme Court's directions, the appeal filed by the petitioners was within the extended limitation. The Court set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and restored the appeal. Regarding the merits, including the unsigned SCN and cancellation order, the Court noted that these were matters for the concerned officer to decide after hearing the petitioners. The Court directed the concerned officer to issue a written notice of hearing, specifying the date, time, venue, and mode of hearing (virtual or physical). The writ petition was disposed of on these terms.
Facts
The petitioners, Railasys Engineers Private Limited & Anr., filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 28.06.2021, a show-cause notice (SCN) dated 29.10.2019, and an order dated 25.11.2019 that cancelled their GST registration. The appellate order was based on the appeal being filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The petitioners had not filed GST returns for the period between February 2019 and November 2019, though they later filed these returns with late fees on 30.04.2021. The revenue argued that the petitioners' conduct warranted no relief and that the procedure was followed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the limitation period for filing the appeal was extended by the Supreme Court's orders in Suo Motu W.P.(C.) No.3/2020, considering the period of non-filing of returns predated the COVID-19 pandemic? (Question of law) 2. Whether the SCN dated 29.10.2019 and the order cancelling registration dated 25.11.2019 were invalid for being unsigned and lacking details regarding the venue for hearing? (Question of mixed law and fact) 3. Whether Rule 68 of the CGST Rules, 2017, required the revenue to issue a notice concerning non-filing of returns before resorting to cancellation of registration under Rule 22? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: (i) The Supreme Court's orders extended the limitation period. (ii) The SCN and cancellation order were unsigned and lacked venue details, violating principles of natural justice. (iii) Rule 68 mandated a prior notice for non-filing of returns. Revenue's arguments: (i) The Supreme Court's orders on limitation were not applicable as the non-filing period was before COVID-19. (ii) The procedure prescribed under the 2017 Rules was followed. (iii) Signatures were not appended as the orders were uploaded on the common portal, relying on Section 169(1)(d) of the Act.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Rule 68, Rule 22, Section 169(1)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Decision delivered on: 21.07.2022 + RAILSYS ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. .. Petitioners Through: Mr Sandeep Chilana, Mr Priyojeet Chatterjee, Ms Shambhavi Sinha and Mr Shekhar Sharma, Advs.
versus
THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX (APPEALS-II) & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr R. Ramachandran, Senior Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
This writ petition is directed against the appellate order dated 28.06.2021, passed by respondent no.1. 1. 1. Besides the challenge to the aforementioned order i.e., Order-in- Appeal, challenge is also laid to the show-cause notice (SCN) dated 29.10.2019 and the order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the concerned authority, cancelling the petitioners’ registration.
What is not in dispute before us is that the Order-in-Appeal passed by respondent no.1 is founded on the ground that the app
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.