M/S Asha Brick Field vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Asha Brick Field, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 07.03.2024 that cancelled its GST registration. The cancellation was due to non-filing of returns. A notice for cancellation was issued on 23.02.2024, to which the petitioner did not respond. The petitioner claims personal reasons prevented them from filing returns and accessing the portal, and they only became aware of the cancellation in March 2025. The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was not served as per Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, and therefore, the appeal limitation should commence from the date of communication or notice. However, the respondent's portal did not allow appeals based on this plea, and the petitioner had not provided material evidence for their claims.

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition. It found that the petitioner's attempt to seek revocation of cancellation of registration based on the plea of non-service of the order and delayed notice was not tenable. The Court observed that the petitioner had not filed a response to the notice for cancellation and that the plea regarding non-service as per Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, was apparently based on assumption, with no material placed on record to support it. The Court noted that the respondent's portal did not permit filing appeals based on such a plea. Therefore, the Court declined to entertain the petition and permitted the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, implying they should follow the prescribed legal remedies if available and substantiated.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns is valid when the petitioner claims non-receipt of the order as per Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, and consequently, the limitation for filing an appeal has not commenced. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that they were not served with the cancellation order in terms of Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, the period of limitation for filing an appeal should commence from the date the order was communicated to them or came to their notice, which was in March 2025. They sought revocation of the cancellation of registration. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent's portal did not permit filing appeals based on the petitioner's plea. The court noted that the petitioner's plea for filing an appeal was apparently based on assumption, and no material had been placed on record to substantiate it. The respondent did not explicitly argue on the validity of the cancellation or service of notice, but their portal's functionality and the lack of petitioner's supporting material implicitly supported the order.