2026-VIL-1030-RAJ
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-1030-RAJ

SGST High Court Cases

GST - Cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months - Section 29(2)(c) and Section 107 of CGST Act 2017 - Statutory limitation for filing statutory appeal and condonation of delay - Order cancelling registration was passed with retrospective effect from date of default - Statutory appeal was filed beyond prescribed period of limitation and extended condonable period - Appellate Authority dismissed appeal as barred by limitation - Whether High Court can condone delay in filing statutory appeal beyond maximum period of limitation prescribed in statute and remand matter to Appellate Authority for decision on merits when appeal is filed after expiry of prescribed period of limitation - HELD - The statutory period of limitation prescribed for filing appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act 2017 is binding on the appellate authority. The statute contemplates condonation of delay for a further period of one month beyond the prescribed period. Once appeal is filed beyond the maximum period inclusive of the condonable period the Appellate Authority loses jurisdiction to entertain the appeal - The High Court cannot exercise writ jurisdiction as a matter of course to circumvent the statutory scheme of limitation and entertain a writ petition filed after expiry of the statutory period to condone the delay and remand the matter to the Appellate Authority for consideration on merits. Such exercise of jurisdiction would defeat the legislative intent and render the statutory limitation provisions otiose -. The legislative mandate regarding limitation in special statutes like GST Act is based on fundamental principles of public policy ensuring expeditious adjudication and certainty. Any interference with the statutory scheme of limitation by the High Court except in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances where there is complete disregard of principles of natural justice or manifest lack of jurisdiction would undermine the efficacy of the statutory framework - In the present case the petitioner failed to furnish returns for six consecutive months a clear violation of statutory obligation under Section 39 and failed to file appeal within the prescribed period. No exceptional circumstance warranting interference has been demonstrated. Subsequent compliance with statutory requirements after cancellation of registration does not obliterate the earlier violations. - The writ petition is dismissed - The order cancelling the GST registration and the order of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation cannot be interfered with – The petition is dismissed
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST Critical issues: ITC on...
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?