M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court granted the petitioner liberty to challenge the order dated 13.08.2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), by filing an appropriate appeal before the learned Tribunal as provided under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court did not decide the merits of the case regarding the grounds of limitation or violation of natural justice. The writ petition was disposed of based on this liberty granted. The specific findings on the issues raised by the petitioner were not recorded as the matter was settled by granting liberty to pursue the statutory remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The cancellation order was passed by the Superintendent, Central Goods and Service Tax, Purnea Range, on 13.09.2024. Subsequently, the petitioner's statutory appeal against this cancellation was rejected by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) on 13.08.2025, primarily on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner argued that the appeal was rejected mechanically without considering the facts, subsequent compliance, and the severe financial consequences. The petitioner also challenged the notice for suspension and cancellation of registration, alleging a violation of natural justice and that proceedings were combined without a proper opportunity to be heard. The petitioner sought quashing of these orders and restoration of its GST registration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner against the cancellation of its GST registration was liable to be rejected on the ground of limitation, as held by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals)? The petitioner argued that the rejection was mechanical and did not consider substantial compliance and the severe civil and financial consequences. The revenue contended that the appeal was indeed filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, and thus, the appellate authority was justified in rejecting it. 2. Whether the cancellation of GST registration and the proceedings relating to suspension and cancellation were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and without providing a proper and effective opportunity to be heard? The petitioner contended that the proceedings were combined and conducted mechanically. The revenue did not record any specific argument on this point in the judgment.