Marudhar Medical Store vs. Assistant Commissioner

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order of the Appellate Authority dated September 18, 2023. The Court found that the petitioner had sufficiently explained the reasons for filing the appeal with a delay. Following the precedent set in Prakash Purohit's case, the Court held that the dismissal of the appeal solely on limitation grounds, without considering the explanation, was not justified. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal against the cancellation of GST registration before the competent authority within ten days from the date of the order. The competent authority was directed to consider and decide the appeal on its merits in accordance with law, treating the appeal as within limitation. The issue of the merits of the GST registration cancellation itself was not decided.

Facts

The petitioner, Marudhar Medical Store, filed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of its appeal by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled on February 23, 2023. The statutory period for filing an appeal against this cancellation was up to June 22, 2023. However, the petitioner filed the appeal on July 18, 2023, citing being out of station as the reason for the delay. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as time-barred without considering the petitioner's explanation. The respondents argued that the delay was not satisfactorily explained and the dismissal was justified.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal as time-barred, despite the petitioner providing a reason for the delay, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and potentially Article 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the dismissal of the appeal solely on the ground of limitation, without considering the explanation for the delay (being out of station), was erroneous. They relied on the Division Bench judgment in Prakash Purohit vs. Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax Jaipur, which held that the inability to conduct business due to GST registration cancellation infringes upon the right to livelihood under Article 21. The petitioner sought liberty to file an appeal and for it to be considered on merits, excluding the limitation bar. Respondents' Contention: The respondents contended that the appeal was rightly dismissed as time-barred, and the delay in filing was not satisfactorily explained by the petitioner.