Sunil Kumar Vij vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The High Court held that the order dated 29.08.2022 passed by Respondent No. 2, which rejected the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of a one-day delay, was unsustainable. The Court found this approach to be hyper-technical and pedantic. The Court noted that Respondent No. 2 was not vested with the authority to condone delay, and it referred to several High Court judgments supporting the view that such technicalities should not defeat substantive justice. The Court emphasized that the inability to conduct business due to the cancellation of GST registration would violate the petitioner's right to livelihood, which is an integral part of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated 29.08.2022, condoned the delay in filing the appeal before Respondent No. 2, and directed Respondent No. 2 to decide the appeal on its merits. The parties were left to bear their own costs. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Sunil Kumar Vij, a GST-registered dealer, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 29.08.2022 passed by Respondent No. 2, which rejected his appeal on the ground of a one-day delay. The petitioner's GST registration was suo motu cancelled by Respondent No. 4 on 28.07.2020 for non-filing of up-to-date returns and payment of tax, despite a show cause notice dated 14.07.2020. Respondent No. 3 rejected the application for revocation of registration on 25.10.2021. The appeal against this rejection was dismissed by Respondent No. 2 solely due to a one-day delay, which the petitioner argued was in gross violation of principles of natural justice and prevented a decision on merits. The petitioner also sought a stay on the cancellation order and revocation of the cancellation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 29.08.2022 passed by Respondent No. 2, rejecting the petitioner's appeal on the sole ground of a one-day delay, is sustainable in law and in compliance with the principles of natural justice, particularly concerning the alleged violation of the petitioner's right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the rejection of the appeal by Respondent No. 2 on a hyper-technical ground of a one-day delay, without deciding the appeal on merits, is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner argued that being unable to conduct business without GST registration would deprive him of his livelihood, violating his fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. He relied on several 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. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.