The Himachal Pradesh High Court addressed a case involving Barkat Ali, who had his GST registration cancelled by the CGST Department under the CGST Act, 2017. Ali challenged the cancellation but filed his appeal 171 days late, leading to its dismissal by the appellate authority as time-barred. The High Court initially remanded the case, instructing the appellate authority to reconsider the matter on its merits and issue a reasoned order after hearing all parties.
Despite the High Court's directive, the appellate authority once again dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of delay, prompting Ali to seek further judicial intervention. The central issue was whether the appellate authority could dismiss the appeal as time-barred, despite the High Court's explicit instructions for a fresh adjudication on merits.
The High Court clarified that its previous order required the appellate authority to conduct a de novo hearing and focus on the substance of the dispute, not just procedural timelines. The Court noted that dismissing the appeal due to delay did not necessitate detailed reasoning, as the dates were undisputed. However, the appellate authority was expected to understand that the High Court's intention was for a substantive examination.
Read More: Meghalaya High Court - GST disputes on classification, exemption, and taxability should generally be resolved through the statutory appeal process, not through a writ petition [Order attached]
While the Court expressed disapproval of the appellate authority's approach, it acknowledged a potential misunderstanding of the judicial directions regarding delay condonation. Ultimately, the High Court set aside the previous rejection orders, instructing the appellate authority to reassess the appeal on its merits, disregarding the delay, and to conclude the process by 30 June 2026, ensuring all parties are adequately heard.
Order Date - 05 May 2026
Parties: Barkat Ali Vs Union of India and others including the State and CGST Department
Facts -
- Petitioner Barkat Ali received a show cause notice dated 06.02.2024 from the CGST Department for cancellation of his GST registration under the CGST Act, 2017, following which the registration was cancelled on 19.03.2024.
- Petitioner challenged the cancellation by filing an appeal in FORM GST APL-01 on 06.01.2025. However, the appeal was filed 171 days beyond the prescribed limitation period of 30 days.
- Earlier they approached the High Court in CWP No.11247 of 2025 after the appellate authority rejected his appeal as time-barred. The High Court then remanded the matter back with directions to pass a fresh, reasoned, and speaking order after hearing all parties.
- They again approached the High Court because even after remand, the appellate authority once more rejected the appeal only on the ground of delay instead of examining the dispute on merits.
Issue -
- Whether the appellate authority could again dismiss the GST appeal as time-barred despite the High Court’s earlier remand directing a fresh adjudication on merits.
Order -
- The High Court observed that its earlier remand order clearly required the appellate authority to conduct a de novo hearing and pass a reasoned and speaking order on the substance of the dispute. The Court explained that such directions necessarily meant that the appeal had to be examined on merits and not dismissed again solely on limitation grounds.
- The Court noted that rejecting the appeal merely due to delay did not require any elaborate reasoning because the dates were undisputed. Therefore, once the earlier order had directed a detailed reconsideration, the appellate authority should have understood that the High Court intended the matter to be adjudicated substantively.
- While expressing disagreement with the approach adopted by the appellate authority, the Court still granted the officer the benefit of doubt, observing that the authority was exercising quasi-judicial powers and may have misunderstood the earlier judicial directions regarding condonation of delay.
- The High Court ultimately set aside both rejection orders and directed the appellate authority to hear the appeal afresh on merits by ignoring the delay in filing. The authority was also instructed to provide adequate hearing opportunity to all stakeholders and conclude the exercise expeditiously, preferably by 30 June 2026.
