M/S. Bokna Raiyat Rojgar Committee,Through Its Authorized Signatory Namely, Chayan Mallick vs. The Union Ir INDIA,Through The Prinicipal Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax Act

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's appeal was filed significantly beyond the statutory period of limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. Section 107(1) provides a period of three months for filing an appeal, with a further condonable period of one month if the appellate authority is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. The petitioner filed its appeal approximately 17 months after the order of cancellation, which is far beyond the permissible period. The Court found no perversity in the order of cancellation of GST registration, nor any necessity to interfere with the appellate order, as the appeal was filed beyond the statutory limitation. The Court noted that the petitioner was lethargic in its approach, failing to file returns for six months and then filing an appeal after a delay of 17 months. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. The writ application was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Bokna Raiyat Rojgar Committee, a partnership firm engaged in transportation services, challenges the order cancelling its GST registration and the subsequent appellate order rejecting its appeal. The registration was cancelled by the Superintendent, CGST and Central Excise, Chaibasa Rural Range, on May 12, 2022, for failing to furnish returns for six continuous months. The petitioner claims its business was adversely affected due to non-release of bills by service recipients, leading to non-filing of returns. A show cause notice was issued on March 26, 2022, and a reply was filed on April 7, 2022, which the petitioner contends was not considered. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Appeal) on February 26, 2024, approximately 17 months after the cancellation order, which was rejected solely on the grounds of being filed beyond the prescribed limitation period.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of limitation, without considering the merits, when the appeal was filed approximately 17 months after the order of cancellation of GST registration? 2. Whether the order of cancellation of GST registration passed by the Superintendent, CGST and Central Excise, was valid, considering the petitioner's explanation for non-filing of returns and the alleged non-consideration of its reply to the show cause notice? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that its business was adversely affected due to non-release of bills by service recipients, which prevented it from filing returns. It contended that its reply to the show cause notice was not considered. Furthermore, due to medical reasons, the petitioner could not file the statutory appeal within the period of limitation, and the appellate authority should have decided the appeal on merits rather than rejecting it solely on limitation grounds. The petitioner relied on the principle that appeals should ideally be decided on merits. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents supported the impugned orders, asserting that there was no perversity or illegality in the order of cancellation of GST registration or the appellate order.