M/S. Marang Buru Trust, Through Its Authorized Representative vs. The State Of Jharkhand, Through Its Secretary, Department Of State Tax

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief due to its lethargic approach. Firstly, the petitioner failed to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months, which is a mandatory requirement under the CGST Act. Secondly, the petitioner filed its appeal before the appellate authority after a delay of 1 year and 20 days, which is significantly beyond the three-month period prescribed for filing appeals under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court found no perversity in the order of cancellation of GST registration and no necessity to interfere with the appellate order, which was correctly dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, the writ application was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Marang Buru Trust, a social welfare organization, received a show cause notice on October 7, 2022, from Respondent No. 3, the Superintendent CGST & CX, for cancellation of its GST registration. On the same day, its GST registration was suspended. The petitioner failed to file a reply within the stipulated period, and an order cancelling its GST registration was passed on November 16, 2022. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal on December 5, 2023, which was dismissed by Respondent No. 2, the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), on July 26, 2024, on the grounds of being filed after the expiry of the limitation period prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner sought to set aside the cancellation proceedings and restore its GST registration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the suspension of the petitioner's GST registration on the same day as the issuance of the show cause notice, without providing an opportunity to be heard, violates the principles of natural justice, thereby vitiating the subsequent cancellation proceedings? 2. Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of limitation, without considering the merits of the cancellation order, is justified, especially when the petitioner argues that the cancellation order itself erroneously stated that the reply was considered? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the suspension of registration on the same day as the show cause notice, without a hearing, violated natural justice. It also argued that the cancellation order incorrectly stated that its reply was considered, despite no reply being filed within the stipulated period. The petitioner sought quashing of the cancellation proceedings and restoration of its registration. Revenue's arguments: The respondent submitted that the petitioner failed to furnish returns under Section 39 of the CGST Act for a continuous period of six months, necessitating the show cause notice and subsequent cancellation. The respondent argued that no interference was required with the impugned orders.