Mateshwari Construction And Traders Vs Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Goods And Service Tax (Rajasthan High Court)
Summary: Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration and rejection of the belated proceedings seeking revocation. The registration had been cancelled after the petitioner failed to file GST returns for six months. A show-cause notice was issued on 08.10.2022, but according to the Court no reply was filed within the stipulated period, resulting in cancellation of registration on 10.11.2022. The petitioner contended that the non-filing of returns and the delay had been duly explained, that the revocation application had wrongly been rejected for want of reply to the show-cause notice, and that an appeal for revocation was submitted on 26.10.2024 followed by a reply dated 05.12.2024. The proceedings were ultimately rejected as barred by limitation by the impugned order dated 15.01.2025.
The High Court noted that neither the alleged revocation application nor any acknowledgment evidencing its receipt had been placed on record. According to the petitioner’s own case, the appeal was filed only in 2024 and was clearly time-barred. The Court further found that this was not a case where an opportunity of hearing had been denied: notice proposing cancellation had been issued but was not answered within time, and no expeditious steps were thereafter taken either to seek revocation or avail the appellate remedy within the statutory limitation period. Considering the peculiar facts and the petitioner’s conduct, the Court declined to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction, particularly in view of the Supreme Court decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. Vs Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, which concerned exercise of writ jurisdiction after the statutory appellate remedy had become barred by limitation. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. However, the High Court expressly clarified that dismissal of the petition would not prevent the petitioner from applying for fresh GST registration in accordance with the applicable terms and conditions.
Cases Discussed
- Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. Vs M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (Supreme Court); AIR 2020 SC 2819.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on admission.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground of non-filing of return for a period of six months, which was duly explained. The delay in submission was also thoroughly explained. The application for revocation of the cancellation of registration was also wrongly rejected on the ground that reply to the show-cause notice was not submitted. The appeal for revocation was submitted on 26.10.2024 followed by reply to the show-cause notice submitted on 05.12.2024. All have been rejected on the ground that same are barred by limitation vide impugned order dated 15.01.2025.
3. Having gone through the contents of the petition, we are of the view that on the allegation that the petitioner failed to submit the return for a period of six months, show-cause notice was issued on 08.10.2022, however, the petitioner did not reply to the same. Finally, the registration was cancelled as no reply was filed by the petitioner for the reasons best known to him and registration was cancelled on 10.11.2022. The written argument in support of appeal for revocation against cancellation of GST is said to have been filed on 05.12.2024. Neither the application seeking revocation, nor any acknowledgment, as receipt of the same, has been filed, that means the petitioner did not file any application for revocation of cancellation of registration within the time stipulated under the law.
4. According to the petitioner himself, he filed the appeal in the year 2024, which was clearly time-barred and dismissed as barred by limitation.
5. The present is not a case where the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. He was given notices proposing cancellation of registration, which was not replied within the time stipulated, which ultimately led to cancellation of registration. The petitioner did not take any expeditious steps to seek revocation or to avail remedy of appeal within the period of limitation prescribed under the law, but the same has been filed after a long time. Finally, the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.
6. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and conduct of the petitioner in the present case, on facts, we are not inclined to grant any discretionary relief to the petitioner, more so in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. Vs. M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited [AIR 2020 SC 2819].
7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
8. It is made clear that dismissal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the petitioner to apply for fresh registration as per the terms and conditions applicable under the law.
