M/S Bharat Caterers, Through Its Partner Mohammed Hassan Khan vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise

Held

The Court held that the appeal filed by the petitioner on June 3, 2025, against the original order dated September 5, 2024, was beyond the prescribed period of limitation under Sections 107(1) and 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. Section 107(1) prescribes a period of three months from the date of communication of the decision or order for filing an appeal. Section 107(4) allows the Appellate Authority to condone a delay only up to a further period of one month. The Court noted that the petitioner's appeal was filed significantly beyond this permissible period. The Court relied on its own previous decision in Marang Buru Trust vs. State of Jharkhand (2024) 25 Centax 270 (Jhar.), which held that no appeal beyond a total period of four months (three months plus one month condonable period) can be entertained by the appellate authority. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it in limine, upholding the appellate authority's decision to reject the appeal as time-barred.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Bharat Caterers, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging an Order-In-Appeal dated September 19, 2025, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise (Appeals). This order rejected the petitioner's appeal against an order of cancellation of GST registration dated September 5, 2024, solely on the grounds of being time-barred. The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled by the Superintendent of Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise, Bistupur North Range, Jamshedpur, under Section 29(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 22(3) of the Rules of 2017. The appeal against the cancellation order was filed on June 3, 2025, which was significantly beyond the prescribed limitation period.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order-In-Appeal No.:482/CGST/JSR/2025 dated September 19, 2025, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise (Appeals) is liable to be quashed and set aside for rejecting the petitioner's appeal on the sole ground of being time-barred, without delving into the merits of the case? 2. Whether the order of cancellation of GST registration dated September 5, 2024, issued by the Superintendent of Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise, Bistupur North Range, Jamshedpur, is liable to be quashed and set aside? 3. Whether the Petitioner's GST registration bearing GSTIN:20AADFB0440L2Z2 should be revoked and restored to its original status, considering the delay in filing the appeal was due to unavoidable circumstances and technical constraints? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to unavoidable circumstances and technical constraints, and they had no intention to contravene the provisions of the GST Act. They sought the quashing of the appellate order and the restoration of their GST registration. Revenue's Contention: The respondents contended that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period as per Sections 107(1) and 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. They relied on Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the decision of the Division Bench of the same High Court in Marang Buru Trust vs. State of Jharkhand (2024) 25 Centax 270 (Jhar.).