Pc Sheet Metal Works vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals Ii) GST (Delhi) And Anr.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, PC Sheet Metal Works, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 06.12.2019, which cancelled its GST registration due to failure to file returns for six months. This order was passed by the adjudicating authority following a show cause notice dated 22.10.2019. The petitioner appealed this order, but the appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals II) GST (Delhi) on 01.10.2021, confirming the cancellation. The petitioner then filed the instant writ petition. The writ petition was initially dismissed in default on 09.03.2022 but was restored on 30.03.2022.
Held
The Court noted that the petitioner did not dispute the fact that its appeal was filed nineteen months after the order of cancellation of registration, which was beyond the prescribed limitation period. The revenue argued that under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, the appellate authority has limited power to condone delay. However, the revenue also submitted that the petitioner could apply for fresh registration under Section 25 of the CGST Act, 2017, and that the previous cancellation order would not prevent them from obtaining a new registration. The Court took this submission on record. Given this, the petitioner stated that since there was no outstanding tax liability, they would proceed to take steps for fresh registration. Accordingly, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to apply for fresh GST registration as per the extant regime under the CGST Act and Rules.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) was maintainable, given that it was filed nineteen months after the order of cancellation of registration, thereby exceeding the prescribed limitation period under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017? 2. What is the recourse available to the petitioner for obtaining GST registration, if any, in light of the confirmed cancellation of its previous registration? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, through Mr. Mukul Chandra, did not dispute the fact that the appeal was filed nineteen months beyond the limitation period. The petitioner's primary concern appears to be the cancellation of registration and the path forward. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through Mr. R. Ramachandran, argued that the appeal was not maintainable as it was lodged beyond the prescribed limitation. He further contended, citing Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, that the appellate authority has limited power to condone delay. However, he submitted that the petitioner could apply for fresh registration under Section 25 of the CGST Act, 2017, and that the cancelled registration order would not impede this process.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 25
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2022
[Physical court hearing/ hybrid hearing (as per request)]
W.P.(C) 3929/2022 & CM APPL. 18849/2022[Application filed on behalf of the petitioner for amendment of the writ petition]
The record shows that the above-captioned writ petition was dismissed in default on account of non-prosecution, on 09.03.2022. 1.1 However, upon an application being moved by the petitioner i.e., CM 15702/2022, the order dated 09.03.2022 was recalled via order dated 30.03.2022, and the writ petition was restored to its original number and position.
Mr R. Ramachandran, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondents, says that the impugned order dated 06.12.2019 need not be disturbed. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/06/2026 at 08:09:38
The record shows that the impugned order was predicated on the show cause notice dated 22.10.2019. The said show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on account of its failure to file the Goods and Services Tax (GST) returns for a continuous period of six months. It is this, which led to the adjudicating authority, passing an order for cancellation of petitioner‟s registration on 06.12.2019. 2. 2. The record also shows that the petitioner had carried the matter in appeal. The appeal met the same fate, and the order dated 06.12.2019 was confirmed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeal-II, Delhi, via order dated 01.10.2021. 2. 3. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
According to Mr Ramachandran, the appeal was also not maintainable, which is, something that has been noted in the appellate order dated 01.10.2021, as it was lodged beyond the period prescribed for limitation.
Mr Ramachandran says that the appellate authority i.e., Additional Commissioner has no power to condone the delay beyond a period of one month, after the lapse of a period of three months. For this purpose, our attention has been drawn to Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. 3. 2. What is not disputed by Mr Mukul Chandra, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, is that, in this case, the appeal had been filed, after a lapse of nineteen [19] months.
Given this position, we had queried Mr Ramachandran, as to whether the petitioner can re-register himself. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/06/2026 at 08:09:38
Mr Ramachandran says that since the petitioner‟s registration stood cancelled via order dated 06.12.2019, he can apply for fresh registration under Section 25 of the CGST Act, 2017. 4. 2. It is also the submission of Mr Ramachandran that the impugned order dated 06.12.2019, as confirmed by the appellate order dated 01.10.2021, will not come in the way of petitioner seeking fresh registration.
The statement of Mr Ramachandran is taken on record.
Given this position, Mr Chandra says that since, in any event, there is no outstanding tax liability, as depicted in the order dated 06.12.2019 i.e., the order concerning cancellation of registration, the petitioner will take steps for fresh registration, having regard to the statement made by Mr Ramachandran.
Accordingly, the petitioner will have the liberty to apply for fresh GST registration, as per the extant regime contained in the CGST Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
The writ petition and the pending application are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
POONAM A. BAMBA, J APRIL 19, 2022 g.joshi
Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/06/2026 at 08:09:38
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.