M/S Gpt-Sky (Jv) Having Its Oficer At Satkar Nagar Colony vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s GPT-SKY (JV), is challenging the cancellation of its GST registration, an order dated 08.10.2021. An appeal against this cancellation was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 06.03.2023. The dismissal was primarily on the grounds that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period and also outside the extended period for condonation of delay under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner relies on a Central Government Notification No. 03/2023 dated 31st March, 2023, to seek relief.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 03/2023 dated 31st March, 2023. The Court reasoned that the Explanation to the Notification clearly states that it applies to persons who failed to apply for revocation of cancellation within the time specified in Section 30 of the Act, and importantly, it includes persons whose appeals against orders of cancellation or rejection of revocation applications were dismissed on the ground of failure to adhere to time limits under Section 107 of the Act. The Court found no exclusion for cases where an appeal was filed against a rejection and was subsequently delayed under Section 107. The principle derived is that when a benefit is extended to a defaulter, it should also be available to those who availed of the process but failed to meet the procedural timelines for appeals. Consequently, the Court set aside the appellate order and directed the petitioner to comply with the Notification to avail its benefits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 03/2023 dated 31st March, 2023, when their appeal against the cancellation of registration was dismissed for being filed beyond the period of limitation and the extended period for condonation of delay under Section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the Notification, particularly its Explanation, extends the benefit to persons whose appeals against orders of cancellation of registration have been rejected on the ground of failure to adhere to time limits, and therefore, it should apply to their case. The respondent State argued that the appeal was rejected for being non-maintainable due to delay, not specifically for failure to adhere to the time limit under Section 30(1) of the Act, implying a distinction that might exclude the petitioner from the Notification's benefits.