Shri. Datta Kripa Majur Sahakari Sanstha LTD.Through Ashok Laxmanrao Kadam Chairman vs. The Union Of INDIA (Thru Commissioner Central Tax (CGST) , Kolhapur Commissionerate And Ors

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits of the cancellation order. The Court reasoned that if the Appellate Authority concluded that the Petitioner ought to have filed an application for revocation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, it should have provided an opportunity to the Petitioner to file such an application. The judgment noted that the Appellate Authority had condoned the delay in filing the appeal, as it was admitted and heard, yet no decision on merits was given. The Court's ratio is that procedural technicalities should not bar substantive adjudication, and where a statutory remedy exists, the appellate authority should guide the assessee towards it if the initial appeal is found to be procedurally flawed, rather than outright dismissal without merit consideration. The Court directed the Petitioner to file an application under Section 30 of the CGST Act within 15 days, which the Authority was to consider as within limitation and decide on merits expeditiously.

Facts

The Petitioner, Shri. Datta Kripa Majur Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., had its GST registration cancelled by an order dated 3rd February 2021. The Petitioner filed an appeal against this cancellation order. However, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that the Petitioner had not first availed the remedy of filing an application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act. The Appellate Authority did not consider the merits of the cancellation. The Petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of the Appellate Authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the Petitioner's appeal on the ground that the Petitioner failed to first file an application for revocation of registration under Section 30 of the CGST Act, without adjudicating on the merits of the cancellation order? Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority should have considered the merits of the cancellation order, especially since the appeal was admitted and heard. The Petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority's approach of dismissing the appeal on a procedural technicality, without addressing the substance of the cancellation, was incorrect. The Petitioner relied on the principle that substantive justice should prevail over technicalities. Revenue's contention: The Revenue contended that the Petitioner had a statutory remedy under Section 30 of the CGST Act to apply for revocation of the cancelled registration. By directly filing an appeal instead of pursuing this remedy, the Petitioner failed to follow the prescribed procedure, and therefore, the Appellate Authority was justified in dismissing the appeal.