M/S S.D. Associates Through Proprietor Sanjay Dubey vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of being time-barred without ascertaining the crucial fact of when the order cancelling the GST registration was communicated to the petitioner. Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, clearly states that the appeal period of three months commences from the date the decision or order is communicated to the aggrieved person. The Appellate Authority's observation that the appeal was filed after three months from the date of passing the order was insufficient, as the date of communication was the determining factor for limitation. Since this aspect was not considered, the impugned order of the Appellate Authority was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law, specifically addressing the date of communication of the cancellation order and its impact on the limitation period.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s S.D. Associates, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 17.08.2021 passed by the Appellate Authority (Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Indore). This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an earlier order dated 02.01.2019 by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, which had cancelled the petitioner's GST registration. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as being barred by time, noting that it was filed approximately two years and seven months after the cancellation order. The petitioner contended that they were not served with any notice regarding the cancellation order and only came to know about it from other sources, which prevented them from filing the appeal within the stipulated time.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was barred by limitation under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, considering the date of communication of the order cancelling GST registration. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that no notice was issued or served upon them by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax regarding the cancellation of their GST registration. They claimed to have acquired knowledge of the order from other sources, which prevented them from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. They emphasized that the limitation period commences from the date the order is communicated, not from the date of its passing. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent revenue authorities regarding the limitation period or the communication of the order. The Appellate Authority's decision was based on the petitioner filing the appeal after the statutory period.