M/S Neo Built Through Its Proprietor vs. E.T. O. Cum Proper Officer And Another

Held

The Court held that the interpretation of Notification No. 34/2021 by the respondents was unduly restricted. The Court noted that the notification was issued in view of the COVID-19 pandemic, during which even the Supreme Court had extended limitation periods. The Court found that the petitioner had already benefited from earlier notifications extending time limits. Therefore, the time limit for filing the application for revocation of cancellation should have been extended up to 30th September 2021. The Court also added that this was not a case where a vested right had accrued by efflux of time, and holding the plea of limitation to defeat the right to livelihood would be against the spirit of the Constitution. The Court directed that if the petitioner files an application/appeal for revocation of cancellation within 30 days from the receipt of the order, it would be deemed to be within limitation and decided on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Neo Built, had its GST registration cancelled on 15.05.2019 by the ETO-cum-Proper Officer due to 'Discontinuation/Closure of business'. The petitioner had not responded to the show cause notice issued on 01.05.2019. The petitioner resumed business in June 2020 and filed an appeal against the cancellation order on 22.12.2021. This appeal was rejected on 09.04.2022 by the appellate authority on the grounds of delay in submission. The petitioner then filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the cancellation order and the rejection of the appeal, praying for the appeal to be entertained on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's appeal against the cancellation of GST registration, filed on 22.12.2021, was barred by limitation, considering the various notifications extending the time limit for filing applications for revocation of cancellation due to the COVID-19 pandemic? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that based on a conjoint reading of Notifications dated 23.04.2019, 25.06.2020, and 29.08.2021 (Notification No. 34/2021-Central Tax), they were entitled to an extended period of limitation and could file the application for revocation of cancellation of registration up to 30th September 2021. They relied on the judgment in CWP-19029-2021, Aarcity Builders Private Limited vs. Union of India and others. Respondents' contention: The respondents contended that Notification No. 34/2021 dated 29.08.2021 applied only to cases where cancellation orders were passed between 01.03.2020 and 31.08.2020, which was an erroneous interpretation.