Rajesh Kumar vs. UOI And Others

Held

The High Court held that Respondent No. 2, the appellate authority, erred in taking a hyper-technical and pedantic view by deeming the delay of 10 months and 14 days as fatal to the maintainability of the appeal. The Court observed that Respondent No. 2 was not vested with the authority to condone the delay. Citing various High Court judgments, the Court emphasized that the petitioner's inability to continue his business without GST registration would deprive him of his livelihood, infringing upon his fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated July 22, 2025, passed by Respondent No. 2. The delay in filing the appeal before Respondent No. 2 was condoned, and the matter was remanded to Respondent No. 2 to decide the appeal on its merits. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajesh Kumar, a GST-registered dealer, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated July 22, 2025, passed by Respondent No. 2, which rejected his appeal filed on March 24, 2024. The rejection was solely on the grounds of a delay of approximately 10 months and 14 days in filing the appeal. The petitioner had initially received a show cause notice dated March 12, 2024, for cancellation of registration. Subsequently, Respondent No. 4 suo motu cancelled his GST registration on April 19, 2024, citing non-filing of up-to-date returns and payment of tax. Respondent No. 3 had previously rejected the application for revocation of GST registration on March 12, 2024.

Key Issues

1. Whether Respondent No. 2, the appellate authority, was justified in rejecting the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of a delay of 10 months and 14 days, thereby refusing to condone the delay, under the relevant provisions of the GST Act and Rules? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the appellate authority (Respondent No. 2) took a hyper-technical view by deeming the delay fatal to the maintainability of the appeal. The petitioner further contended that the cancellation of GST registration would deprive him of his livelihood, violating his right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner relied on various High Court orders, including M/s G.G. Agencies Girijeshwar Rice Mill vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors., Vinod Kumar Vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST & Ors., TVL. Suguna Cutpiece Centre vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), M/s Trans India Carco Carriers Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (Circle), and Poonamchand Saran vs. Union of India and others. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents regarding the delay in filing the appeal.