Period of limitation applied by High Court for filing revocation of cancellation of GST registration where taxpayer bonafidely pursued revocation before appellate authority instead of officer who cancelled the registration.

In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of cancellation of registration dated 03.12.2019 by which the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled invoking Section 29 of the CGST Act read with Rule 22 of the CGST Rules.

The petitioner filed an appeal against that order before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Appellate Authority has, by referring to Section 30 of the CGST Act, dismissed the appeal with the following observations :-

"11. In view of the above and available facts on record,

I find that the appellant had failed to file application for revocation of cancellation before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner within the prescribed time as discussed above.

I also find that the appellant instead of exercising remedial action available u/s 30(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 has sought revocation of cancellation of registration before the appellate authority.

In such a scenario, I hold that the request of the appellant for revocation of cancellation of registration is not sustainable and liable to be rejected in absence of application for revocation before the proper officer as mandated u/s 30(1) of the said Act.

12. In view of the above, the request for revocation of cancellation of registration is rejected and the Appeal filed by the Appellant is dismissed accordingly.

Even though, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court may entertain the writ petition against the aforesaid two orders, but Shri Gajendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Central Goods and Services/contesting respondent has submitted that the Commissioner has rightly dismissed the appeal because in view of Section 30 of the CGST Act, remedy of the petitioner for the revocation of cancellation of registration, would apply to proper officer for revocation of cancellation of the registration in the prescribed manner within thirty days from the date of service of the cancellation order.

The reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the application for revocation of cancellation of registration has to be made before the same officer who cancelled the registration. However, as regards the period of 30 days within which the application was to be submitted by the petitioner, we find that amendment made to Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 dated 18.05.2021 would be helpful to the petitioner because it says that such application can be filed either within 30 days or within such time period as extended by the Additional Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be, in exercise of the powers provided under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the CGST Act."

In that view of the matter, we find that the period of limitation could be extended by any one of the aforementioned authorities. Since, in the present case, the amendment has been brought in the Rule 23 of the Rules of 2017 by notification dated 18.05.2021, the Commissioner who decided the appeal by order dated 19.02.2021, did not have the occasion to consider that aspect whether the period of limitation for filing application under Section 30 of the CGST Act, should be, in the present case, extended.

Considering that the petitioner has bonafidely pursued the remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act against the order of revocation of cancellation of registration dated 03.12.2019 and the appeal remained pending for a period of about one year, we are persuaded now to dispose of the writ petition by requiring the proper officer to consider the application for revocation of cancellation of registration, if now filed within 15 days from today, and decide the same on merits within 30 days from the date of filing of such application.

taxreply.com © 2024. All Rights Reserved