Shree Chaturbhuj Construction Buildcom vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Shree Chaturbhuj Construction Buildcom, filed a writ petition challenging three orders: the cancellation of its GST registration dated July 31, 2023, the rejection of its application for revocation of cancellation dated October 18, 2023, and the dismissal of its appeal dated January 29, 2024. The registration was cancelled due to failure to furnish GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner applied for revocation of cancellation on August 24, 2023, which was rejected. The appeal against the rejection was dismissed on the grounds that the revocation application was not filed within the stipulated time. The petitioner contends that the revocation application was filed within thirty days of the cancellation order. The respondents argue that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is maintainable because the non-functioning of the GST Tribunal has left the petitioner without an effective alternative remedy. Regarding the timeliness of the revocation application, the Court found that the dismissal of the appeal was based on a factual error. The appellate authority incorrectly computed the limitation period by considering the effective date of cancellation rather than the date of service of the cancellation order. The Court noted that it was not contested that the revocation application was filed within thirty days of the service of the cancellation order. Consequently, the impugned order of the appellate authority was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the appellate authority for a fresh decision on the appeal. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal, considering the non-functioning of the GST Tribunal? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on the principles of writ jurisdiction and the efficacy of alternative remedies). 2. Whether the application for revocation of GST registration cancellation was filed within the prescribed time limit under Section 30 of the CGST Act? (Question of fact and law, turning on the interpretation of the time limit for filing revocation applications and the relevant date for computation). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the writ petition is maintainable due to the non-functioning of the GST Tribunal, leaving them remediless. They contended that the application for revocation was filed within thirty days of the cancellation order. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal against the appellate authority's order. They also stated that the petitioner failed to file returns for over six months, leading to the cancellation.