M/S Aaria Infraserve PVT.LTD vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 Others

Held

The Court held that the issue was squarely covered by a previous decision of the same High Court in W.P.No.27071 of 2022. In that case, the Court had noted that while an appellate authority might allow an appeal beyond the statutory limitation for a further period, the delay beyond that extended period could not be condoned. Crucially, the Court observed that since no GST Tribunal had been constituted under Section 109 of the CGST Act, the petitioner would be left without any remedy. Therefore, the Court decided that it would be just and proper to remand the entire matter back to the concerned authority to reconsider the case. Accordingly, the orders of Respondent No. 4 (cancellation of registration) and Respondent No. 3 (dismissal of appeal) were set aside. The matter was remanded back to Respondent No. 4 to consider the petitioner's grievance against the cancellation of GST registration and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, with the petitioner being required to submit all pending returns. The Court explicitly stated it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Aaria Infraserve Pvt. Ltd., is a company engaged in real estate and renting, registered under GST. Respondent No. 4 issued a show cause notice on 23.04.2019 for non-filing of GST returns for over six months. The petitioner replied on 02.05.2019. However, Respondent No. 4 cancelled the petitioner's GST registration on 14.12.2019, citing continuous non-filing of returns for more than six months. The petitioner appealed this order to Respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3, by an order dated 27.08.2022, dismissed the appeal, primarily on the grounds of limitation and the fact that the cancellation order was not challenged.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority (Respondent No. 3) was justified in dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of limitation and non-challenge of the original cancellation order, especially when no GST Tribunal has been constituted? 2. Whether the cancellation of GST registration by Respondent No. 4, and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal by Respondent No. 3, is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of principles of natural justice, given the absence of a functional GST Tribunal? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the appellate authority's dismissal on limitation grounds was flawed, particularly as no GST Tribunal had been constituted under Section 109 of the CGST Act, leaving them without a proper remedy. They argued that the entire matter should be reconsidered. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents regarding the issues raised by the petitioner. However, their actions (cancelling registration and dismissing the appeal) implicitly suggest they relied on the provisions of the CGST Act regarding non-filing of returns and the procedural requirements for appeals.