M/S Techno Unique Infratech Private LTD Site Officer At Gram Godwali Deosar Tehsil Thana Bargawan Si vs. The Additional Commissioner

Held

The Court set aside the appellate authority's order dated 27.03.2025, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of limitation. The Court reasoned that given the peculiar facts and circumstances, including the petitioner's submission regarding unawareness of the cancellation and the impact of their government contract status, it was appropriate to consider the appeal on its merits. The Court remitted the appeal back to the appellate authority with a direction to decide it in accordance with the law. The appellate authority was also directed to consider the petitioner's submission that the restoration of registration was sought for a limited purpose. The appellate authority was instructed to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within 30 days of receiving a copy of the order.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Techno Unique Infratech Private Ltd, challenged the cancellation of its GST registration by an order dated 17.08.2021. Subsequently, their appeal against this cancellation was dismissed by an order dated 27.03.2025, solely on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the cancellation and that their contract with a government entity had been cancelled, leading to a lack of hope for payment. The petitioner sought restoration of their GST registration, even temporarily, to receive a substantial amount from a government entity and pay the GST dues. The government entity was unwilling to release funds without the petitioner's valid GST registration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner against the cancellation of GST registration was rightly dismissed on the ground of limitation, considering the petitioner's alleged unawareness of the cancellation and the cancellation of their government contract, as per the relevant provisions of the GST Act and Rules governing appeals and condonation of delay. Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that the appeal was not filed within the prescribed time due to lack of awareness of the GST registration cancellation and a prior cancellation of their government contract, which led to pessimism about receiving payments. They sought restoration of registration, even temporarily, to facilitate payment of GST dues. Revenue: Submitted that registration cannot be restored for a limited purpose.