M/S Lords Bhaskar Ventures vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority had rightly taken the view that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was barred by limitation. The reasoning was based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, which established that appellate authorities, being creatures of statute, do not possess the jurisdiction to condone delays beyond the period statutorily provided. The statutory period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, is three months, with a further possibility of extension by one month. The petitioner's appeal was filed significantly beyond this extended period. The Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Appellate Authority. The writ application was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Lord’s Bhaskar Ventures, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 13.12.2023 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & CX, Patna, which dismissed their appeal on grounds of limitation and non-filing of the certified copy of the impugned order. The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled by the Superintendent, Patna City East Range, via an ex parte order dated 14.01.2023, without providing an opportunity for hearing. The petitioner claimed no tax was due and sought restoration of their GSTIN. The cancellation was initiated due to non-filing of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B returns from January 2022 to January 2023. The show cause notice was published on the web portal, and the petitioner claimed no knowledge of it. The appeal was filed after a significant delay of over four months beyond the statutory period.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 13.12.2023 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) is bad in law and liable to be interfered with, considering the petitioner's contention that the cancellation of registration was ex parte and without an opportunity of hearing, and that the appeal was dismissed solely on the ground of limitation and non-filing of the certified copy of the impugned order. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that their GST registration was cancelled ex parte without proper notice, as the show cause notice was published on the web portal and not sent to their email or official address. Consequently, they were unaware of the cancellation and could not file an appeal within the statutory period under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. They also sought restoration of their GST registration. Revenue's arguments: The respondents contended that the cancellation was initiated due to continuous non-filing of returns for over six months, with the show cause notice issued through the AIO Portal in accordance with Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017. They further argued that the appeal was filed with a substantial delay of more than four months beyond the permissible period, even considering the extended period for condonation of delay. The petitioner also failed to appear for a personal hearing on an application for revocation of cancellation.