GST Registration Challenge Closed as Appeal Time-Barred: SC

Delhi Enterprises Vs Sales Tax Officer (Supreme Court of India)

The proceedings arose from the challenge to the retrospective cancellation of a GST registration by an order dated 3 October 2023. The petitioner contended that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) preceding the cancellation did not contemplate retrospective cancellation and, therefore, the impugned order was untenable.

Read HC Judgment in this case: Delhi HC Dismissed Writ Petition as GST Appeal Barred by Limitation

Before the Delhi High Court, the respondent department pointed out that the petitioner had already availed the statutory appellate remedy. An appeal against the cancellation order was filed before the Appellate Authority but was dismissed on 3 September 2024 as barred by limitation. The petitioner thereafter challenged the appellate order through a writ petition (W.P.(C) 13679/2024), which was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench on 7 February 2025, again on the ground that the appeal was time-barred and hence not entertainable.

In its detailed judgment, the Coordinate Bench recorded the factual background. The petitioner firm had been registered on 13 March 2020 and claimed to have regularly filed GST returns for subsequent financial years. Due to confusion regarding the firm’s address in an unauthorised area lacking a formal address system, the GST inspector could not locate the premises. On this basis, an online SCN was issued stating that the firm could not be traced and that the address appeared incomplete. Subsequently, the GST registration was cancelled retrospectively with effect from the date of registration. Although the petitioner filed an appeal after learning of the cancellation, the Appellate Authority dismissed it for delay.

The Coordinate Bench held that the statutory scheme under Sections 107(1) and 107(4) of the CGST Act prescribes a specific limitation period for filing appeals, along with a narrowly defined condonable period. It concluded that once this period expires, neither the Appellate Authority nor the High Court can extend limitation by invoking the Limitation Act. The Court emphasised that where a statute creates a special and independent regime of limitation, the general provisions of the Limitation Act cease to apply. Since the appeal was filed beyond the permissible period, the writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

When the petitioner again approached the Delhi High Court challenging the retrospective cancellation on merits, the Court held that the remedies against the impugned order stood exhausted. As both the statutory appeal and the earlier writ petition had already been dismissed on the ground of limitation, the petitioner could not be permitted to re-agitate the same issue through another writ petition. The Court therefore held the petition to be not maintainable and dismissed it.

Thus, read together, the High Court and Supreme Court proceedings establish that the challenge to the retrospective cancellation of GST registration failed not on merits, but on account of limitation. The dismissal of the Special Leave Petition as withdrawn left the High Court’s findings intact, reinforcing that once statutory remedies are exhausted and barred by limitation, the same issues cannot be reopened through successive proceedings.

FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the petition.

2. The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn.