M/S Shubhangi Pipe Industries Thru. Its Prop. Jyoti Kumari vs. Union Of INDIA Thru. Prin. Commisioner Central G.S.T. Lko And 2 Others

Held

The Court allowed the petition, setting aside both the order dated 03.01.2022 (cancelling GST registration) and the appellate order dated 07.12.2022 (rejecting the appeal as time-barred). The Court reasoned that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the order passed in Writ Tax No.145 of 2022. The petitioner was permitted to appear before the respondent authority within three weeks from the date of the order, along with a reply to the show cause notice and certified copies of the present judgment and the judgment in Writ Tax No.145 of 2022. Upon such appearance, the respondents were directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law. The ratio decidendi is that where a petitioner demonstrates inability to comply with statutory timelines due to circumstances like the COVID pandemic, and a favorable precedent exists, the court may grant relief by allowing a fresh opportunity to present their case, overriding procedural objections like time-barring.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shubhangi Pipe Industries, challenged an order dated 07.12.2022 by the appellate authority and an order dated 03.01.2022 cancelling its GST registration. The cancellation occurred after the petitioner failed to file GST returns due to sickness. A show cause notice was issued on 02.12.2021, requiring a reply within seven working days. The petitioner contended it could not respond due to the COVID pandemic. The appeal against the cancellation order was rejected by the appellate authority as time-barred. The petitioner sought revocation of its GST registration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the order passed by this Court in Writ Tax No.145 of 2022 (Technosum India Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow Vs. Union of India and others) dated 26.09.2022, considering the circumstances of the case, including the inability to respond to the show cause notice due to the COVID pandemic and the rejection of the appeal as time-barred. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that it is entitled to the same relief granted in the aforementioned Writ Tax No.145 of 2022, implying that the court should extend the benefit of that judgment to its case given the similar circumstances. The petitioner relied on the precedent set by the order in Writ Tax No.145 of 2022. Respondent's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondents. However, their actions (issuing the cancellation order and the appellate authority rejecting the appeal) indicate a stance that the petitioner did not comply with the procedural requirements within the stipulated timeframes.