M.N.Ghosh And Sons Through Its Partner, Sarad Kumar Sahu vs. Principal Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax And Central Excise, Jamshedpur

Held

The Court held that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) was significantly delayed. The order of cancellation was passed on 08.07.2022. The normal period for filing an appeal under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act was three months, i.e., up to 07.10.2022. Even with the extended period of one month for condonation of delay under Section 107(4), the appeal should have been filed by 07.11.2022. However, the appeal was filed online on 29.09.2023, which is over one year and three months beyond the normal period. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in "Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur" which held that statutory authorities, like the appellate authority, cannot condone delay beyond the period prescribed by the statute, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded. Therefore, the appellate authority had no power to entertain the appeal beyond the statutory limit. The Court found no perversity in the order of cancellation of GST registration and no necessity to interfere with the appellate order, as the appeal was filed beyond the statutory period of limitation. The Court did not go into the merits of the case due to the delay in filing the appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, M.N. Ghosh & Sons, a partnership firm, had its GST registration cancelled by the Superintendent, CGST & CX, Chaibasa Rural Range, on 08.07.2022, effective from 28.02.2022, for failure to furnish returns for six months. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was dismissed on 23.11.2023 as time-barred. The petitioner sought to quash both the cancellation order and the appellate order, and requested the revocation of the cancellation. The petitioner contended that a partner's ill health prevented timely response to the show-cause notice and filing of returns. The revenue argued that the appellate authority cannot condone delay beyond the period stipulated in Section 107.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal as time-barred, considering the facts and circumstances, particularly the alleged ill health of a partner and financial crisis leading to delayed return filing? 2. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act was justified? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the severe health issues of an active partner, which prevented timely action. They also cited financial crisis as a reason for delayed return filing. The petitioner argued that Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, which requires filing of returns with interest and late fee before revocation application, precluded them from filing the revocation application within the specified time. They sought to rely on the principle that the High Court, under Article 226, can condone delay. Revenue's arguments: The revenue argued that there was no error in the impugned order and that the High Court, in numerous judgments, has held that the appellate authority cannot condone delay beyond the period stipulated in Section 107 of the CGST Act. They submitted that the writ application should be dismissed.