Case Law Details
Chandra Gupta And Associates Vs Commissioner Of Central Tax (Appeals-II) & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
In the case of Chandra Gupta And Associates Vs Commissioner Of Central Tax (Appeals-II) & Anr. before the Delhi High Court, the petitioner challenged an Order-in-Appeal dated 08.05.2024, which rejected the appeal against the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration due to a delay of six days in filing. The original cancellation, dated 11.07.2023, lacked a clear explanation beyond referencing a Show Cause Notice issued on 08.05.2023. The petitioner sought revocation of the cancellation, but the request was denied on 04.11.2023. Upon appeal on 09.02.2024, it was delayed by six days, attributed to the expectation of resolution through a rectification order under Section 161 of the CGST Act. However, the Appellate Authority did not consider this explanation or exercise its power to condone the delay under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act. The High Court found that sufficient reasons for the delay were provided and that the appeal should have been considered. The court set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and remanded the case to the Appellate Authority for a decision on the merits, instructing that it be resolved within six weeks.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an Order-in-Appeal dated 08.05.2024 (hereafter the impugned order) whereby the petitioner’s appeal against the order dated 04.11.2023, whereby the petitioner’s petition for revoking the order cancelling its GST Registration, was rejected on the ground of delay.
2. The petitioner had preferred the aforesaid appeal against an order dated 11.07.2023 (hereafter the cancellation order) whereby the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 08.05.2023 (hereafter SCN).
3. The cancellation order, apart from referring to the SCN, does not mention any reason for cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration. The petitioner had applied for revocation of the cancellation order, however, the same was rejected by an order dated 04.11.2023.
4. The petitioner assailed the said order dated 04.11.2023 in an appeal filed on 09.02.2024 under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
5. Concededly, the petitioner’s appeal was delayed by six days; that is, it was six days beyond the stipulated period of three months provided under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act. Moreover, the petitioner provided the explanation for such delay. He submitted that the concerned GST officer has raised a ticket for rectification of the order dated 04.11.2023 under Section 161 of the CGST Act and the same was also communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was thus hopeful that its grievance could be resolved by a rectification order.
6. A plain reading of the impugned order indicates that the said explanation was not considered. It is relevant to note that in terms of Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, the Appellate Authority has the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal by one month.
7. Thus concededly, the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned by the Appellate Authority. However, the Appellate Authority did not examine whether the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause in filing its appeal and failed to exercise its power for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
8. We are satisfied that the petitioner had provided sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the appeal and the same ought to have been condoned.
9. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 08.05.2024 and remand the matter to the Appellate Authority for consideration on merits. The Appellate Authority is requested to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from date.
10. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
11. Pending application is also disposed of.
Author Bio
