GST
TRT-2025-
Delhi High Court
Date:-21-07-22
In:-
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:-
Order Date: 21 July 2022
Facts-
- The Petitioner, Railsys Engineers Private Limited has filed the present petition against the Order-in Appeal passed by the Revenue Department wherein a Show Cause Notice dated 29.10.2019 and order was passed dated 25.11.2019 to cancel the GST registration of the petitioner.
- The Petitioners, has assailed the aforementioned Order-in-Appeal, the SCN and the order cancelling the registration of the petitioners, broadly, on the following grounds:
- The limitation period was extended by various orders passed by the Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation [Suo Motu W.P (C.) No.3/2020 dated March 23, 2022].
- The SCN, ordering to cancel the GST registration, is an unsigned order which directs the appearance of the Petitioner without indicating the venue where the proceedings would be conducted.
- The order cancelling registration did not bear the signature of the concerned authority.
- Rule 68 of the CGST Rules required the Respondent to issue a notice to the Petitioner concerning the non-filing of returns for the period in issue, having regard to the fact that up until February 2019, the petitioners had been regularly filing its returns.
- The period during which the petitioners did not file their return, spans between February 2019 and November 2019.
- The Respondent contended that returns for the continuous period of six months, were not filed by the petitioners and therefore, the SCN was issued regarding the cancellation of the registration. Further, the period of non-filing the returns being prior to Covid-19 kicking in, the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation [Suo Motu Writ Petition No.3/2020 dated March 23, 2022] will not be applicable in the Petitioners’ case.
Issue-
- Whether the Petitioner is covered by the orders and directions issued by the Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation [Suo Motu Writ Petition No.3/2020], to which, reference has been made hereinabove?
- Whether the order cancelling GST registration needs to bear the signature of the concerned authority?
Order-
- The Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that the period of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 is three months, which is amenable to extension by the period of one month by the Commissioner on sufficient cause being shown.
- The Court after taking note of the Supreme Court orders in suo motu writ petition and the fact that covid-19 restrictions were imposed on about 23.3.2020 throughout the country, found that it is clear that the extension of limitation applied even to the condonable period, and not just to prescribed period of limitation under section 107.
- The prescribed period of limitation ends on 24.02.2020, with a one-month leeway available to the Commissioner to extend the period of limitation. The condonable period of one month, in this instance, would end on 24.03.2020.
- Therefore, it was held that the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 28.06.2021 is clearly contrary to the directions issued by the Supreme Court, and therefore, deserves to be set aside.
- Thereafter, the court observed that on a plain reading of the provision of section 169 it does not suggest that the orders need not be signed. At the least, the respondents/revenue should have appended digital signatures on the SCN and the above-mentioned order, as it has grave implications for the assessee.
- Accordingly, the Impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of.
Download Case Law
