Case Law Details
Marang Buru Trust Vs State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court)
Conclusion: Since there was stagnant approach of filing plea u/s 107 of Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST), Act 2017 to the appellate forum post 1 year and 20 days delay therefore, the GST registration was cancelled as the same was filed beyond the statutory period of limitation.
Held: Assessee-trust was in distinct social activities in community welfare and development. It had received an SCN in Form-REG-31 regarding the cancellation of GST registration. However, assessee was not able to furnish the response in the said duration and an order was passed concerning the GST registration cancellation of the applicant. Assessee asked to set aside the whole proceeding of cancellation of the GST registration emerging from the order on 16.11.2022 as per the show cause notice on 07.10.2022, in which respondent no.3 suspended the GST registration dated 07.10.2022 on the exact day of the SCN, followed by the GST registration cancellation on 16.11.2022. Also, requested to quash and set aside the order passed via respondent no.2 whereby and whereunder, the appeal of assessee had been rejected based on the filing post expiry of the limitation period as forecast u/s 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). It was held that s not been qualified for any relief based on the stagnant approach since the applicant has not furnished the return for a continuous 6 months duration and the applicant furnished the plea to the appellate forum post a 1-year and 20 days delay which is beyond the 3 months duration as cited under the act. “neither there is any perversity in the order of cancellation of GST registration; nor is there any necessity for interference with the appellate order, since, the same is filed beyond the statutory period of limitation.”
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred for following reliefs;
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction setting aside entire proceeding of cancellation of the GST registration arising of out of the order dated 11.2022 in view of the show cause notice dated 07.10.2022 whereby Respondent No.3 has suspended the GST registration on 07.10.2022 on the same day of show cause notice followed by cancellation of GST registration on 16.11.2022.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 07.2024 bearing Order-in-Appeal No. 80/CGST/JSR/2024 passed by the Respondent No. 2 whereby and whereunder, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of being filed after expiry of Limitation period as envisaged under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).
(iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction including Writ of Direction, directing the Respondent- authorities to restore the GST Registration Certificate of Petitioner enabling it to restart normal business
(iv) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is a trust and engaged in various social activities in community welfare and On 07.10.2022, the petitioner received a show cause notice from respondent no.3 in Form-REG-31 regarding cancellation of GST registration. However, the petitioner was unable to file the reply within stipulated period and an order was passed on 16.11.2022 with regard to the cancellation of GST registration of this petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal on 05.12.2023 which was also dismissed on 26.07.2024.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that he received a show cause notice from respondent 3 on 07.10.2022. However, on the same day, the petitioner’s GST registration was suspended without being given an opportunity to be heard, as such on the ground of principles of natural justice, the registration proceeding should be quashed.
He further submits that though the petitioner could not file the reply within the stipulated period provided in the show cause notice, the concerned respondent passed the order for cancellation of registration on 16.11.2022 indicating therein that his reply has been considered.
Even the appellate authority did not interfere with the order of cancelation on merit and simply dismissed the case of the ground of limitation. As such the entire proceeding for cancellation of GST registration arising out of order dated 16.11.2022 be quashed and set aside and the GST registration of the petitioner be restored.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner failed to furnish the return under Section 39 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short CGST Act) and since the petitioner was not following the mandatory procedure, a show cause notice was issued and finally his GST registration has been cancelled, as such no interference is required with the impugned order.
6. Having heard leaned counsel for the parties, it appears that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner (Annexure-2) which indicates that the reason for issuing show cause notice is that the petitioner failed to furnish the return for a continuous period of six months which is mandatory as per the CGST Act.
The petitioner during course of argument had submitted that in the order of cancellation, it has been mentioned that the undersigned has examined the reply but fact remains that no reply was filed by the petitioner within the stipulated period and as such principles of natural justice has been denied to him.
7. It is true that no reply of the petitioner was on record as informed by the CGST counsel; however, the fact remains that the petitioner failed to furnish return for a continuous period of six It further transpires that the appeal of the petitioner was also rejected on the ground of limitation as the same was filed after a lapse of more than 1 year and 20 days; whereas the normal period for filing appeal is three months as prescribed under section 107 (1) of CGST Act 2017.
Thus, we are not having any hesitation in holding that the petitioner firm is not entitled for any relief on the ground of being lethargic in approach, inasmuch as, on the one hand, the petitioner did not file return for a continuous period of six months and on the other hand the petitioner filed appeal before the appellate forum after a delay of 1 year and 20 days which is admittedly beyond the period of three months for filing appeal as prescribed under the Act.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, neither there is any perversity in the order of cancellation of GST registration; nor is there any necessity for interference with the appellate order, inasmuch as, the same is filed beyond the statutory period of limitation. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any stands closed.
Author Bio
