Mayflower Hotels And Resorts LLP vs. The Principal Commissioner Of State Goods And Service Tax And 3 Ors

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner's appeal under Section 107 of the AGST Act, 2017, was indeed filed beyond the prescribed period of three months and no sufficient cause for the delay was demonstrated to the appellate authority, the petitioner's subsequent willingness to file all pending returns and pay all GST dues, including interest and penalties, presented a different avenue for resolution. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner might have invoked the wrong provision for remedy. Recognizing the petitioner's proactive stance in seeking to rectify their non-compliance and the public interest in ensuring tax revenue, the Court directed the respondents to consider any proposal made by the petitioner for revocation of the cancellation of registration under Section 30 of the AGST Act, 2017. The Court also advised the authorities to give a reasoned consideration to the petitioner's claim and potentially condone the delay in filing the application, provided the petitioner submits the application within fifteen days. The authorities were given two months to decide after receiving the application, with a hearing to be provided to the petitioner. The issue of whether the initial cancellation under Section 29 was justified was not definitively decided, but the focus shifted to revocation under Section 30.

Facts

The petitioner, Mayflower Hotels and Resorts LLP, is an assessee under GST laws. The petitioner failed to submit GST returns from 2018 to 2021. Consequently, their GST registration was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Guwahati, on December 7, 2021. The petitioner appealed this cancellation order under Section 107 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (AGST Act). However, their appeal was rejected by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals), Guwahati, on September 9, 2022, due to a delay of over nine months beyond the prescribed three-month period for filing an appeal. The appellate authority noted that no sufficient cause for the delay was provided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 107 of the AGST Act, 2017, was maintainable despite being filed with a delay of over nine months from the date of the cancellation order, and if the appellate authority erred in rejecting it solely on grounds of delay without considering Section 107(4) of the AGST Act, 2017, which allows for condonation of delay due to sufficient cause. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that while they may have invoked the wrong provision by filing an appeal under Section 107, their willingness to file all pending returns and pay all dues, including interest and penalties, constitutes a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. They argued that the authorities should consider their proposal for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the AGST Act, 2017, and that it is in the public interest to facilitate tax collection rather than prevent a business from operating. Revenue's arguments: The respondents, represented by the GST Department, argued that the appeal was filed beyond the statutory period of three months prescribed under Section 107(1) of the AGST Act, 2017, and that no sufficient cause was demonstrated for the delay as required by Section 107(4).