Case Law Details
MSK Electricals Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)
1 The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the registration of the Petitioner was cancelled under order dated 3rd February 2021. The limitation period for filing the Appeal and Application was extended by the orders of the Supreme Court on 30th September 2021. The appeal filed by the Petitioner is dismissed by the Appellate Authority only on the ground that the Petitioner did not avail the remedy under Section 30 of the CGST Act.
2 The learned Counsel submits that the appeal is also maintainable against the same. However, the Appellate Authority did not venture into the merits of the matter only on the ground that the Petitioner did not file an Application before the Authority for revoking the cancellation of the registration and dismissed the appeal. No discussion on merit has taken place.
3 The learned AGP submits that there was no impediment for the Petitioner to file an Application for revocation of the order cancelling the registration before the Authority. Instead, the Petitioner preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority has rightly came to the conclusion.
4 Upon perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority, it appears, did not discuss the matter on merits. Only on the ground that the present Petitioner had an opportunity to comply with the provisions of the regulations / statute and the Petitioner failed to avail of the remedy under Section 30 of the CGST Act for revocation of cancellation of the registration, the Appellate Authority has failed to entertain the appeal. The Appellate Authority, if it came to the conclusion that the Petitioner ought to have filed an appeal before the same Authority for revocation, then ought to have accorded an opportunity to the Petitioner to file an Application.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
