The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal against the termination of a GST registration after 18 months.
Facts and issues of the case
The petitioner’s company was registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and was alloted the registration No.23AAICR6172RIZP. However, on account of non-filing of return, the GST number allotted to the petitioner was cancelled. Against cancellation, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.4. The said appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 23.03.2021, which is being sought to be impugned in the present petition. No one appeared even in the second round when the case was called.
Learned counsel for respondents submits that registration of the petitioner was cancelled on 19.06.2019, against which the petitioner herein preferred an appeal on 30.01.2021 and then the appeal was taken up on 16.03.2021, the Appellate Authority taking into consideration of provisions under Section 107 of GST Act, dismissed the appeal as time barred.
Observation by the court
Court had heard learned counsel for respondents and perused the records produced by respondents. Perusal of the records shows that the order of cancellation of registration was passed way back on 19.06.2019 and the appeal was preferred by the petitioner on 30.01.2021. Thus, the appeal was preferred almost after one and half years from the date of order of cancellation of registration.
Section 107 (1) of GST Act provides that an appeal can be preferred within a period of three (3) months from the date of the order, while Section 107 (4) of the Act stipulates that the Appellate Authority, if satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the period of limitation of 3 months, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month.
Thus, the total period during which the appeal ought to have been preferred was four months from the date of cancellation of registration dated 19.06.2019. However, despite lapse of four months, the appeal was not preferred by the appellant/petitioner, nor even in the memo of appeal, sufficient reasons for not filing the appeal in time were disclosed. There was unexplained delay of 1 ½ years in filing the appeal. Thus, in our considered view, the respondent No. 4 has not committed any error while dismissing the appeal preferred by the present petitioner and therefore, we do not find any substance in the present petition.
Conclusion
As no one appeared for the case,court has dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Rajdhani-Security-Force-Pvt.-Ltd-Vs-Union-of-India-Madhya-Pradesh-High-Court..
