Organization For Liberation Of Rural Daliths vs. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals - Ii) GST And Central Tax And Another

Held

The High Court held that the issue of cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns and subsequent dismissal of appeals on grounds of limitation was no longer res integra, referring to its own series of decisions. In line with these precedents, specifically citing M/s. Chenna Krishnama Charyulu Karampudi v. Additional Commissioner (Appeals-II), the Court set aside the orders of cancellation and dismissal. The Court reasoned that to maintain parity with its previous judgments, the matter should be remanded. The Court directed that the matter be remanded back to the file of Respondent No. 2 (Superintendent of Central Tax) for a fresh hearing. The petitioner would have the opportunity to submit their returns as per the statute during this fresh consideration. The Court expressly left undecided any issues beyond the procedural aspects and the need for a fresh hearing.

Facts

The petitioner, Organization for Liberation of Rural Daliths, obtained a GST registration certificate on January 23, 2019. The Superintendent of Central Tax, Respondent No. 2, issued a show cause notice on November 30, 2021, proposing cancellation of registration due to non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner replied on December 9, 2021. However, Respondent No. 2 cancelled the registration on January 20, 2022. The petitioner appealed this order to the Additional Commissioner (Appeals-II) GST and Central Tax, Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 dismissed the appeal on October 21, 2022, solely on the grounds that it was barred by limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated January 20, 2022, passed by the Superintendent of Central Tax (Respondent No. 2) cancelling the petitioner's GST registration, and the subsequent appellate order dated October 21, 2022, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals-II) GST and Central Tax (Respondent No. 1) dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation, are arbitrary, illegal, unjust, and contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act and principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the cancellation of their GST registration and the dismissal of their appeal were arbitrary and illegal, violating constitutional provisions and GST laws. They sought to quash these orders. Respondents' Contention: The respondents' primary contention, as reflected in the appellate order, was that the appeal was barred by limitation, leading to its dismissal. No other arguments were recorded for the respondents.