The Jharkhand High Court has declined to quash the cancellation of a GST registration due to the taxpayer's failure to comply with notices issued under Form GST REG-17 and REG-31. Under the GST framework, a proper officer may initiate cancellation proceedings by issuing a show-cause notice in Form REG-17. If no satisfactory response is received, the taxpayer’s registration can be suspended, followed by a formal intimation through Form REG-31 after 30 days.
M.N. Ghosh & Sons, a partnership firm engaged in civil construction and labour supply, had its GST registration cancelled for failing to file returns for six consecutive months. After receiving a show-cause notice in Form GST REG-17/31 and suspension notice effective 28.01.2022, the firm's registration was cancelled from 28.02.2022. The petitioner appealed under Section 107 of the CGST Act, but the appeal was dismissed as time-barred.
The bench of Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan observed, “Thus, we are having no hesitation in holding that the Petitioner-Firm is not entitled for any relief on the ground of delay and latches coupled with the fact of being lethargic in approach; inasmuch as, on the one hand, the petitioner did not file return regularly and thus has not complied with GST REG-17/31 issued to him in any manner; and on the other hand, the appellant filed appeal after delay of more than one year and three months which is admittedly beyond the period of limitation as per the Act.”
The Court noted that the impugned order for the cancellation of registration, effective from 28.02.2022, was issued on 08.07.2022. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act on 29.09.2023, with a hard copy submitted on 06.10.2023. This appeal was filed more than one year and three months after the statutory deadline for filing appeals as prescribed under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.
The court, while dismissing the application, held that there was no perversity in the order of GST registration cancellation and no need to interfere with the appellate order, as the appeal was filed beyond the statutory period of limitation.
Read Here: