Goutam Kundu vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The Court, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, allowed the appeal and the connected application, along with the writ petition. The appellant was granted 30 days from the receipt of the server copy of the order to file all pending returns and comply with all legal formalities. Upon compliance, the concerned authority was directed to restore the appellant's GST registration. The Court acknowledged the appellant's initial failure to file returns but emphasized that restoring the registration would not only benefit the appellant but also the revenue. The Court explicitly stated that this order should not be treated as a precedent. It was also noted that any outstanding dues payable by the appellant must be cleared for the registration to be restored. The issue of whether the appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) was indeed time-barred was implicitly set aside by the direction to restore registration upon filing pending returns.

Facts

The appellant, Goutam Kundu, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of his GST registration on May 28, 2019, and a subsequent order dated November 9, 2022, by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting his appeal as time-barred. The learned Single Bench of the High Court, by an order dated November 29, 2022, declined to grant an interim order, directing only the filing of an affidavit-in-opposition. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed an intra-Court appeal. The appellant's counsel submitted that while the initial non-filing of returns was not ideal, the appellant was willing to file all pending returns and comply with all formalities, requesting an opportunity to regularize the mistakes.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Bench was justified in not granting an interim order in the writ petition challenging the cancellation of GST registration and the rejection of the appeal as time-barred, thereby compelling the appellant to file an affidavit-in-opposition without addressing the merits of the case? Contentions of the appellant: The appellant argued that an opportunity should be granted to regularize the mistakes committed, specifically by filing all pending returns and complying with the necessary formalities under the CGST Act, 2017. The appellant expressed readiness and willingness to do so. Contentions of the revenue/respondents: The judgment does not explicitly record the arguments made by the respondents (Union of India & Ors.) regarding the denial of interim relief or the rejection of the appeal as time-barred. However, the court's observation about the conduct of the dealer in not filing returns suggests the revenue's stance likely opposed leniency.