Mr. Rupak Srivastava and Mr. Deepak Kapoor, Advs v. SPECIAL COMMISSIONER I, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND TAXES AND ANR Through

…..Respondents Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC with Mr. Ankit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shashank Sharma, Adv. + W.P.(C) 16038/2024 M/S PC QUALITY FURNITURE …..Petitioner Through: Mr. Sermon Rawat and Mr. Harshit Jain, Advs. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF SGST DELHI & ORS. ……Respondents Through: Ms. Mehak Nakra, ASC with Ms. Gunjan Suyal and Mr. Aditya Goyal, Advs. + W.P.(C) 16067/2024 M/S JAI AMBY FURNITURE …..Petitioner Through: Mr. Sermon Rawat and Mr. Harshit Jain, Advs. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF SGST DELHI & ORS. ……Respondents Through: Ms. Mehak Nakra, ASC with Ms. Gunjan Suyal and Mr. Aditya Goyal, Advs. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:07.02.2025 15:10:30 W.P.(C) 14279/2024 & Connected Matters + W.P.(C) 16936/2024 M/S VASS IMPEX …..Petitioner Through: Mr. Vibhas Kumar Jha, Mr. Rajat Pandey, Mr. Manju Pandey and Mr. Deepak Jha, Advs. versus THE JOINT COMMISIONER CGST APPEALS-II DELHI AND ANR. …..Respondents Through: Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, SC with Mr. Anand Pandey, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA J U D G M E N T DHARMESH SHARMA, J. 1. These batch of petitions emanate from the orders handed down by the Appellate Authority, wherein the Appellate Authority has negated the stand of the petitioners thereby dismissing their appeals on the ground of limitation as per Section 107 of the Central and Goods Services Tax Act, 20171. The petitioners also seek the quashing of the Show Cause Notices2 issued to them by the respondents and the restoration of their respective GST3 registrations. 2. The main two issues of the petitioners herein are: - i) Whether the Appellate Authority under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act is authorized to condone the delay in filing an appeal beyond one month after the expiration of the three-month period specified in Subsection (1) of Section 107 for filing an 1CGST Act. 2SCN 3Goods and Services Tax Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:07.02.2025 15:10:30 W.P.(C) 14279/2024 & Connected Matters appeal against a decision or order issued by an adjudicating authority under the CGST Act? and ii) Whether the appellate authority is empowered to condone a delay beyond the thirty-day period prescribed under Subsection (4) of Section 107 of the Act of 2017 or not, this Court, in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may direct the condonation of such delay. This can be done if the Court is satisfied that an exceptional case has been made out for such condonation or if the interest of justice demands it.

3. The petitioners in the aforementioned petitions are registered proprietors/dealers under the CGST Act, each holding different registration numbers. They were assessed by the respective adjudicating authorities which resulted in certain demands being raised against them and in some instances, their GST registrations being cancelled. Aggrieved by the cancellation of their GST registrations and the demands imposed, the petitioners filed statutory appeals before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST. However, those appeals were not entertained and were dismissed due to delay in filing. 4. As the Central Government is yet to institute an Appellate Tribunal, the petitioners, aggrieved by the rejection of their appeals, have approached this Court by invoking its writ jurisdiction. For the sake of convenience and for proper adjudication, each of the writ petitions will be discussed individually. W.P. (C) 14279/2024 5. In the present writ petition, a SCN, bearing reference No. ZA070322183368F, was issued by respondent No. 2 on 31.03.2022, proposing the cancellation of the petitioner firm's GST registration on Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:07.02.2025 15:10:30 W.P.(C) 14279/2024 & Connected Matters the ground of "non-commencement of business within six months from the date of registration," in the case of voluntary registration. The petitioner firm submitted a reply to the notice on 03.10.2022, providing explanations for the alleged discrepancies and furnishing the necessary documentation to demonstrate compliance with the GST provisions. Despite this, respondent No. 2 proceeded to cancel the petitioner firm's GST registration on 27.10.2022, with effect from the original date of registration, i.e., 07.06.2018. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the order cancelling the GST registration, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act on 12.02.2024. However, by order dated

29.07.2024, the appeal was dismissed in limine, on the ground that the impugned order was of 27.10.2022 and the appeal was filed on

12.02.2024, which is beyond the prescribed time limit set forth in the provisions of sub-sections (1)4 and (4)5 of Section 107 of the CGST Act. 7. The petitioner contends that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the fact that they had submitted their reply to the SCN, which was duly received by respondent No. 2 on 03.10.2022. Despite this, the cancellation order issued by respondent No. 2 erroneously stated, "whereas no reply to notice to show cause has been submitted." The 4 Section 107. Appeals to Appellate Authority (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act by an adjudicating authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be prescribed within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person. 5 (4) The Appellate Authority may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months or six months, as the case may be, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:07.02.2025 15:10:30 W.P.(C) 14279/2024 & Connected Matters petitioner asserts that they made several visits to the respondent to rectify this clerical mistake, which caused the delay in filing the appeal. W.P.(C) 15045/2024 8. In the present writ petition, the petitioner firm registered its business under the CGST Act on 23.04.2019, with GST registration No. 07AAECJ4719NIZ6. The petitioner firm asserts that due to the demise of a family member of their Chartered Accountant from COVID-19 and the nationwide lockdown, they were unable to file GST returns from February 2022 to June 2022. 9. On 26.07.2022, respondent No. 36 issued a SCN bearing reference No. ZA070221010429 to the petitioner firm for failure to pay tax, interest and penalty owed to the GST department. The petitioner firm approached respondent No. 3 seeking restoration of the GST registration. However, respondent No. 3 did not address the petitioner firm's request nor did they provide an opportunity for the petitioner to submit a reply or request a personal hearing in response the SCN dated 26.07.2022. Subsequently, on 23.03.2023, respondent No. 3 issued an online order cancelling the petitioner firm's GST registration, effective retrospectively from 24.04.2019. The petitioner firm further argues that the Ward Office took eight months to issue the cancellation order. 10. On 25.01.2024, following consultation with their legal team and Chartered Accountant, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. However, the appeal was dismissed in limine by Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:07.02.2025 15:10:30 W.P.(C) 14279/2024 & Connected Matters the Appellate Authority on the ground that the impugned order was of

23.03.2023 and the appeal was filed on 25.01.2024, which is beyond the prescribed time limit set forth in the provisions of subsections (1) and (4) of Section 107 of the CGST Act. 11. The petitioner relies on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s Elasto Rubber Pvt. Ltd v. The Commissioner of SGST Delhi7, wherein this Court quashed the cancellation of GST registration. The petitioner states that they have undertaken to settle any tax liabilities accrued or due for the business year 2020 to the present or any charges payable to the respondents. 12. The petitioner further submits the respondents retroactively cancel the GST registration effective 23.04.2019, it would invalidate the GST invoices issued during that period and affect the transactions made under that GST number. Consequently, GST officers have been issuing demand notices to purchasers who received GST tax invoices from the petitioner for transactions between 2019 and 2020. The petitioner argues that this is unlawful and unsustainable in law, asserting that the respondents cannot retroactively cancel the firm’s registration from 23.04.2019. W.P.(C) 16861/2024 13. In the present writ petition, the petitioner firm had migrated to the CGST Act, holding GSTIN No. 07AAEFE9144R1ZS. The petitioner states that respondent No. 28 issued a SCN bearing reference No. ZA071120010986U for the cancellation of its GST 6 Sales Tax Officer Class II, Ward 87, AVATO, Zone -8, Delhi-SGST. 7 W.P.(C) 9516/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:07.02.2025 15:10:30 W.P.(C) 14279/2024 & Connected Matters registration on 05.11.2020. The SCN specified that the petitioner firm could submit a reply within eight working days from the date of the notice. Additionally, the petitioner firm was instructed to appear for a personal hearing on the same day, 05.11.2020, at 4:42 PM, failing which the case would be decided ex parte based on the available records and on merits. The SCN was accompanied by an internal communication letter from the Deputy Commissioner, Anti Evasion, Central Tax, to the Assistant Commissioner, Division Rajouri Garden, CGST Delhi – West. The letter indicated that the Anti Evasion branch had conducted a physical verification of the petitioner firm’s registered premises pursuant to a directive dated 14.10.2020, and found the petitioner to be non-existent at the specified location. 14. The impugned letter neither specified the date of physical verification nor include evidence proving the petitioner’s non- existence at the principal place of business, only mentioning a telephonic conversation with a former employee. The Assistant Commissioner was requested to initiate suo motu cancellation proceedings under the CGST Act. No inspection notice or verification report with photographs was uploaded in Form GST REG-30, as per Rule 25 of the GST Rules, 2017, before 04.08.2023. On 5.11.2020, the petitioner firm’s manager informed respondent No. 2 that the firm had vacated its premises due to COVID-19 and was seeking a new location to resume operations. 15. The petitioner firm submitted a reply to the SCN on 16.11.2020, explaining that the business premises were vacated due to the sudden 8 The Superintendent, Ward 62, Zone 05, Range – 121, 4th Floor, Bhikaji Cama Palace, Delhi. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:07.02.2025 15:10:30 W.P.(C) 14279/2024 & Connected Matters COVID-19 outbreak with the partners working from home. The petitioner firm also mentioned an ongoing investigation by the Assistant Commissioner, GST Audit-II, Delhi, regarding the migration of service tax input of Rs. 21,51,962/- through TRANS-1 Form. The detailed reply aimed to substantiate that the petitioner firm was not a non-existent or bogus dealer but had temporarily vacated the premises due to the pandemic. 16. Respondent No. 2 uploaded the GST registration cancellation order on 26.11.2020. The petitioner contends that their reply was not considered as the cancellation stated “no response has been submitted, and the registration is canceled per DC (AE)'s direction.” The petitioner firm further explains that due to the COVID-19 outbreak, the firm's accountant relocated to his hometown with the GST portal login credentials leaving the partners unaware of the cancellation order. On 17.12.2020, the partner submitted another reply with the firm's new address, but they remained unaware of the cancellation order dated 26.11.2020. 17. The petitioner firm places reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Brindavan Beverages9, wherein it was held that the SCN serves as the foundation upon which the department must construct its case. If the allegations outlined in the show cause notice are vague, lack specificity, are devoid of necessary details, or are unintelligible, it can be conclusively held that the petitioner was not afforded a proper opportunity to address the allegations contained therein. The purpose Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:07.02.2025 15:10:30 W.P.(C) 14279/2024 & Connected Matters of a SCN is to provide the noticee with a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations made against them. In the absence of specific particulars, the SCN fails to fulfill its intended purpose and becomes ineffectual. It is a well-settled principle of law that any person against whom an adverse order is proposed must be adequately informed of the reasons underpinning such a proposal. 18. The petitioner firm discovered that their GST registration had been cancelled effective 26.11.2020, vide cancelation order dated

26.11.2020. The petitioner firm promptly filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 21.12.2023. However, on 19.04.2024, the appeal was dismissed solely on the ground of limitation. The petitioner argues the Appellate Authority overlooked vagueness of the show cause notice, the disregard of the petitioner’s reply and that the cancellation order was issued hastily and under the influence of another officer. 19. The petitioner firm submits that it seeks an opportunity to revive its GST registration to regularize the defaults. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Madras High Court in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center v. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner10, where it was held that cancellation of GST registration serves no useful purpose and contravenes the objectives of the GST regime. The Court observed that excluding taxpayers from the GST framework leads to revenue leakage and undermines the purpose of ensuring proper tax collection on goods and services. Denying the revival of registration 9 2007 SCC OnLine SC 842 10 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 8903 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:07.02.2025 15:10:30 W.P.(C) 14279/2024 & Connected Matters effectively isolates entrepreneurs and hinders revenue generation. Therefore, the impugned Show Cause Notice and cancellation order merit being set aside, and the Petitioner's GST registration should be restored. W.P.(C) 5650/2024 20. In this instant writ petition, the petitioner got his company registered on 17.07.2017, bearing GSTIN No. 07DFFPM214D1ZR. The petitioner filed an application for the cancellation of his registration on 09.03.2022. The respondent No. 211 issued a SCN under Section 29(2) of the CGST Act read with Rules 22(1) on

03.02.2023, for cancelation of registration of the petitioner’s GST certificate. 21. The petitioner asserts that the SCN bears a stamp reading "Signature Not Verified," digitally signed by DS Goods and Services Tax Network 07, who is not the authorized Proper Officer for the petitioner, rendering the notice legally invalid. Additionally, the SCN dated 03.02.2023 does not indicate that the registration would be cancelled retrospectively, yet the Registration Certificate was cancelled retrospectively based on this notice. The petitioner further states that the order dated 18.04.2023, cancelling the registration retrospectively to 02.07.2017, also bears the "Signature Not Verified" stamp and is digitally signed by an unauthorized officer, making it unsigned and invalid in law. 11 Superintendent, Ward 61, Range – 128, Janakpuri, Delhi. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:07.02.2025 15:10:30 W.P.(C) 14279/2024 & Connected Matters

22. The petitioner submits that the SCN dated 03.02.2023, reflected the reason for cancellation of the Registration Certificate, which reads as follows: - “Failures to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months" in facts and circumstances is not an erroneous reason when six months period has not exhausted."

23. The petitioner submits that this reason does not suffice as he had applied for the cancellation of the Registration Certificate on

09.03.2022. 24. It is further stated that the order dated 18.04.2023 directed the petitioner to pay "ZERO" (0) amount, contradicting the SCN dated

03.02.2023, which alleged failure to pay tax, interest, or penalty beyond six months from the due date. The cancellation order dated

18.04.2023, based on the SCN dated 03.02.2023, is illegal, arbitrary, and invalid, as the cited reason is incorrect. The SCN was issued before the six-month period had expired, and the petitioner had already applied for cancellation, which was still pending. Therefore, the order violates Section 29(2) of the CGST Act, rendering it legally flawed. 25. Aggrieved by the cancellation of the Registration Certificate, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority on

18.10.2023, which was rejected on 09.01.2024 for being time-barred. 26. The petitioner contends that the Registration Certificate12 was suspended on the same day the Show SCN dated 03.02.2023 was issued, and no order revoking the suspension was passed within a 12 RC Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:07.02.2025 15:10:30 W.P.(C) 14279/2024 & Connected Matters reasonable time. Instead, the impugned cancellation order was arbitrarily issued after a prolonged period on 18.04.2023. The cancellation, citing non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months, lacks statutory backing as it does not fall within the causes outlined in Section 29(2) of the CGST Act. Furthermore, the retrospective cancellation of the RC, without prior notice or explicit mention in the SCN, is unlawful and exceeds the authority conferred by law. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Aditya Polymers vs. Commissioner, DGST13, which underscores the illegality of retrospective cancellation without due process. Accordingly, the impugned order should be quashed as it violates principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. W.P.(C) 13592/2024 27. The petitioner firm, registered under the CGST Act with GSTIN 07ADGPJ9077M1ZW, states that it received various items from registered suppliers, including M/s Ridhi Sidhi Polymers, M/s Pansari Steel Pvt. Ltd., and M/s SSS Profound Solution Private Limited, with payments made through bank transfers. The petitioner firm filed its annual return in GSTR-09 and availed Input Tax Credit on items received from these suppliers. It is however stated that since 2020, the proprietor of the petitioner firm has suffered from lower spine pain and significant business losses due to non-receipt of dues from various business parties. 13 W.P.(C) 14493/2022 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:07.02.2025 15:10:30 W.P.(C) 14279/2024 & Connected Matters

28. In 2022, finding it difficult to continue the business, the proprietor of the petitioner firm decided to close it and requested the respondents to permit the discontinuation. The petitioner firm's application for business closure was registered with the respondent on

25.05.2022, and on 20.06.2022, the respondent approved the closure. The petitioner firm states that, more than five years after filing the annual return for FY 2017-18, respondent No. 2 issued a SCN bearing reference No. ZD070923023779X dated 22.09.2023, alleging an outstanding demand of Rs. 4,55,93,670/- (including interest upon the amount due and penalty) related to the annual return for FY 2017-18. 29. The petitioner firm responded to the SCN, explaining that the excess tax computed for FY 2017-18 had already been reversed in FY 2018-19. The petitioner firm also informed the Proper Officer that M/s Ridhi Sidhi Polymers remained active until 2022 and filed its tax returns up to February 2022. However, respondent No. 2, the Proper Officer, disregarded the petitioner firm's reply and, in the order dated

12.12.2023, concluded that the petitioner firm had not correctly availed input tax credit on inward supplies due to discrepancies in the reconciliation of turnover in GSTR-9, resulting in a tax demand of Rs. 3,88,352/- (CGST: Rs. 1,94,176/- and SGST: Rs 1,94,176/-) for FY 2017-18. 30. The petitioner firm on being aggrieved by the order dated

12.12.2023 passed by the Proper Officer, preferred to file an appeal before the Adjudicating Authority. However, the appeal could only be filed on 12.06.2024 before the Appellate Authority, due to the closure of the business, and it took time to gather the necessary documents, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:07.02.2025 15:10:30 W.P.(C) 14279/2024 & Connected Matters resulting in a 91-day delay in filing of the appeal. Inadvertently, no separate application for condonation of delay was submitted. The Appellate Authority listed the appeal, raising objections about the delay, and dismissed it on the grounds of limitation without addressing the merits, through an order dated 04.07.2024. 31. The petitioner states that the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal without considering the petitioner's submissions on the delay and without addressing the merits. The petitioner further submits that the excess tax computed by the respondents for FY 2017-18 had already been reversed in the subsequent financial year, FY 2018-19. W.P.(C) 15725/2024 32. In the present matter, the petitioner, registered under the CGST Act on 01.07.2017 with GSTIN No. 07ADRPR6107R1ZM, submits that on 03.03.2021, the respondents issued a SCN for Cancellation of Registration in Form GST REG-17. The SCN alleged that the petitioner collected tax but failed to pay it to the Central/State Government within three months of the due date. It also stated that the petitioner's registration stood suspended from 01.07.2017. On

12.03.2021, the Proper Officer passed an order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration retrospectively from the registration date,

01.07.2017. 33. Aggrieved by the cancellation order dated 12.03.2021, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority on

19.12.2023. The appeal was dismissed on 27.03.2024 due to the delay in filing. The impugned order stated that the cancellation order was issued on 12.03.2021, and the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:07.02.2025 15:10:30 W.P.(C) 14279/2024 & Connected Matters time limit as per subsections (1) and (4) of Section 107 of the CGST Act. 34. The petitioner submits that the cancellation order dated

12.03.2021 by the Proper Officer and the appellate order dated

27.03.2024 are erroneous, arbitrary, and unlawful, both legally and morally, and should be set aside on the following grounds: - for cancellation due a) The petitioner argues that the retrospective cancellation of GST registration is untenable in this case. The petitioner had voluntarily applied financial difficulties and discontinuance of business, which implies the winding up and closure of business premises. Therefore, retrospective cancellation is unjustified. b) The cancellation order dated 12.03.2021, passed by the Proper Officer, should be set aside due to violations of Rules 20, 21A, and 23(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. According to Rule 20, the petitioner filed an application for cancellation of registration within 30 days of the event warranting cancellation, due to financial hardship. Additionally, Rule 21A states that upon filing the application, the registration is deemed suspended from the date of submission. However, in this case, the Proper Officer incorrectly suspended the GST registration from the date of the Show Cause Notice, i.e., 03.03.2021, which is legally flawed. As per Rule 22(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, the Proper Officer must issue an order within 30 days of the application for cancellation. The petitioner applied on 05.10.2020 and 15.12.2020, but the order was issued on 12.03.2021, exceeding the prescribed period, making it non- compliant with Rule 22(3). W.P. (C) 13679/2024 35. In the present writ petition, the petitioner firm registered its business on 13.03.2020, bearing GSTIN No. 07LLDPS5372LIZA. The petitioner firm asserts that it has regularly filed GST returns for the financial years 2020-2021, 2021-2022, 2022-2023, and 2023-

2024. However, due to confusion regarding the firm's address, the concerned GST inspector could not locate the premises. The petitioner Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:07.02.2025 15:10:30 W.P.(C) 14279/2024 & Connected Matters firm explains that the business premises are situated in Village Nangli Poona, Delhi, an unauthorized area referred to as Laldora land by the Land Revenue Department. This area lacks clearly defined addresses, as property owners often create their own addresses for renting out spaces for commercial purposes such as godowns and shops. The land is subdivided from a large Khasra No. 35 into smaller plots, each approximately 100 square yards, with addresses assigned by the landowners by adding numbers like 1, 2, 3, etc., to the Khasra number. Consequently, when the sales tax inspector visited the petitioner firm's address, he was unable to locate the premises and reported to his superiors that the petitioner's firm was not in existence at the time of inspection. 36. Respondent No. 3 issued an online SCN to the petitioner firm on 11.09.2023, stating that the "firm could not be traced. Address appears to be incomplete." The petitioner contends that respondent No. 3 was aware of the firm's existence but was unable to trace the address due to the fact that the area lacks a proper address system. The address was self-assigned by the property owners for commercial purposes, rather than being recorded in the official land. The respondent No. 3 issued an online cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration on 03.10.2023, with retrospective effect from 13.02.2020, the date of the petitioner's firm's registration. 37. The petitioner asserts that upon learning of the cancellation of the GST registration, which was based on the incomplete address of the firm, it promptly filed an online appeal before the Appellate Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:07.02.2025 15:10:30 W.P.(C) 14279/2024 & Connected Matters Authority on 04.02.2024. However, the Appellate Authority dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of delay on 03.09.2024. W.P.(C) 13757/2024 38. In the present matter, the petitioner, operating a proprietorship firm under the name Loomage India, is engaged in the manufacturing and supply of floor coverings, rugs, carpets, mats, home furnishing textiles, handicrafts, and similar products. The petitioner is a registered trader under the CGST Act since 01.07.2017, bearing GSTIN No. 07ACCPC7326DIZ4. The petitioner submits that, being a layman with limited knowledge of GST return filing, he relies on consultants for advice. It is averred that the petitioner, while filing his GST returns, sought consultation from his advisor but was inadequately guided. The petitioner further submits that on

22.01.2022, he applied for a refund of input tax credit with the respondent for the period from 01.04.2020 to 30.11.2021, a time span affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, during which he was unable to consult with anyone adequately. 39. The petitioner submits that after filing the return, Respondent No. 2 issued a SCN dated 04.04.2022, requiring the petitioner to "show cause as to why the refund claim, to the extent of the specified amount, should not be rejected, or the amount erroneously refunded should not be recovered for the reasons stated therein." In response, the petitioner filed a reply on 09.04.2022, attaching all necessary documents as advised by his consultant. It is claimed that the petitioner did not receive any subsequent communication regarding Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:07.02.2025 15:10:30 W.P.(C) 14279/2024 & Connected Matters the acceptance or rejection of the refund application and it was only after a significant period that the petitioner, upon inquiring with his consultant, was informed—after checking the GST portal—of the rejection of the refund claim. 40. The petitioner's application for input tax credit was rejected by Respondent No. 2 through an order dated 29.04.2022, on the ground that the petitioner had not uploaded GSTR-2A. The petitioner asserts that he was not informed by his consultant about the specific documents required for submission with the return filing. Due to his limited knowledge as a layman and the technical complexities of the portal, he was unable to upload the GSTR-2A, and this was not due to any other reason. The petitioner contends that he is capable of demonstrating his entitlement to an input tax credit amounting to Rs. 6,59,829/-, which is a substantial sum. 41. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.04.2022, wherein respondent wrongfully rejected the petitioner's refund application, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, on 23.01.2023. It is stated that the petitioner did not initially inquire about the status of the refund application, as he reasonably relied on communication from the respondents or any official updates. It was only after specifically consulting with his advisor that the petitioner became aware of the rejection order, nearly four months after its issuance. Consequently, there was a significant delay in filing the appeal. Furthermore, the petitioner did not engage any legal consultant after the rejection of the refund application, resulting in a delay of 182 days in filing the appeal. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:07.02.2025 15:10:30 W.P.(C) 14279/2024 & Connected Matters

42. The Appellate Authority, by orders dated 05.02.2024 and

14.02.2024, rejected the appeal in limine on the ground that it was time-barred, as the petitioner had filed the appeal beyond the three- month period permitted under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contends that the Appellate Authority, without proper consideration and by adopting a pedantic interpretation of Section 107, rejected the appeal without appreciating that the refund application was meritorious and that the petitioner was entitled to a full refund of Rs. 6,59,829/-. W.P.(C) 13760/2024 43. The petitioner, in the present writ petition, is a dealer registered under the CGST Act, bearing GSTIN 07AJDPI6563N1ZS, with validity from 07.12.2019. The petitioner was conducting business at the old principal place of business located at "89, Ground Floor, Pkt- N, Sector-5, DSIDC City, Landmark Near CNG Pump, Bawana, North, Delhi, Delhi, 110039" until 19.12.2022. Subsequently, the petitioner shifted the business premises to a new address on

20.12.2022, as per the rent agreement e-stamp certificate number IN- DL34164385356664U, and requested an online amendment on

13.06.2023 via ARN AA0706230379524. Consequently, the petitioner was found non-existent at the old business premises. 44. Respondent No. 3 issued a SCN to the petitioner on 22.06.2023, citing the reason as "Section 29(2)(e) - registration obtained by means of fraud, wilfull misstatement, or suppression of facts." Subsequently, on 06.07.2023, Respondent No. 3 passed an order for the cancellation of the Registration Certificate with a "0" demand. However, the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:07.02.2025 15:10:30 W.P.(C) 14279/2024 & Connected Matters revenue, acting illegally and arbitrarily, canceled the petitioner's GST registration with retrospective effect from 20.12.2019. 45. Aggrieved by the original order dated 06.07.2023 (P-3), the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act before the Appellate Authority on 21.03.2024, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed three-month period. The appeal was filed following the rejection of the application for condonation of delay in the revocation of the cancellation of registration. After hearing the petitioner, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 24.07.2024. W.P.(C) 16038/2024 and W.P.(C) 16067/2024 46. The petitioner, in the present writ petition, registered its business under the CGST Act, bearing GSTIN 07AYDPS2199H1Z1. The petitioner asserts that from 2017 to 2021, it conducted business in Delhi and regularly filed GST returns during this period. For compliance under the CGST Act, the petitioner engaged a GST consultant to prepare returns and provide advice on the required compliances. However, during this period, the petitioner faced significant operational challenges and financial stress due to the COVID-19 crisis and successive lockdowns, which resulted in high operational costs and minimal sales. 47. It is asserted that in light of these circumstances, the petitioner decided to relocate its business operations to Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh. However, the process of identifying a suitable location and completing transition took several months. Ultimately, the petitioner successfully shifted its operations to Baghpat, U.P. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:07.02.2025 15:10:30 W.P.(C) 14279/2024 & Connected Matters

48. Respondent No. 3 issued a SCN on 23.10.2021 stating "Non- compliance of any specified provisions in the GST Act or the Rules made thereunder as may be prescribed." However, the petitioner asserts that it was unaware of this SCN, as it was not informed by its GST consultant, and consequently, the petitioner was unable to participate in the proceedings. Subsequently, on 18.12.2021, the respondents passed an order cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration retrospectively with effect from 01.07.2017. In or around November 2023, the petitioner learned from another GST consultant that it should have initiated the revocation of its GSTIN for Delhi. Upon instructing the GST consultant to undertake the necessary compliance measures, the petitioner was informed that revocation of the Delhi GST registration was not possible, as the GST number had been cancelled retrospectively from 01.07.2017. 49. Aggrieved by the order of cancelation dated 18.12.2021, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority on

09.11.2023, wherein the appeal was dismissed on 31.05.2024 on the ground of limitation. W.P.(C) 16936/2024 50. The petitioner in the present writ, a trading firm registered under the CGST Act with GST No. 07AFBPJ6962Q1ZT, was engaged in the business of trading goods, including iron, steel, and scrap items, to various clients. The petitioner had duly filed GST returns for the period from 2017 to August 2021. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner’s business suffered significant losses due to the economic downturn. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:07.02.2025 15:10:30 W.P.(C) 14279/2024 & Connected Matters

51. Additionally, it is claimed that several family members of the petitioner became critically ill and passed away during this period, leaving the petitioner emotionally distressed. As a result, the petitioner inadvertently failed to respond to the SCN dated 09.08.2021 and did not take cognizance of the subsequent cancellation of the GST registration through an order dated 19.08.2021. 52. Upon learning in September 2021 that the GST registration had been cancelled by the Superintendent, the petitioner directed his accountant to visit the GST office to initiate the restoration process. However, the Superintendent informed them that the time to file a reply had lapsed and advised them to file an appeal before the appellate authority for the restoration of the GST registration. 53. The petitioner submits that aggrieved by the cancellation of the GST registration, the petitioner filed an appeal on 02.04.2024 before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed on 19.08.2021 on the grounds of limitation. REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS [IN W.P.(C)

54. Per contra, the respondents contend that the petitioner has misrepresented facts and failed to disclose that their application for cancellation of registration was rejected due to non-compliance with a notice issued in that regard. Despite the rejection, the petitioner resumed filing returns temporarily, indicating an attempt to exploit legal provisions by withholding complete information. The respondents assert that such conduct warrants prosecution under Section 340 of the CrPC for perjury due to the filing of a false Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:07.02.2025 15:10:30 W.P.(C) 14279/2024 & Connected Matters affidavit. The sequence of events reveals that the petitioner filed an application for cancellation of registration on 09.03.2022, following which a notice dated 31.03.2022 was issued, seeking clarification regarding non-filing of returns up to the date of cancellation. 55. The respondents submit that, as the petitioner failed to respond to the notice within the stipulated time, i.e., by 08.04.2022, the application for cancellation of registration was consequently rejected by order dated 09.05.2022. The respondents contend that the petitioner deliberately concealed this order and omitted it from the narration of facts. 56. Following the rejection of the Application for Cancellation of Registration, the petitioner resumed filing returns for the quarters of January-March 2022 on 23.04.2022 and April-June 2022 on

24.07.2022. However, the petitioner subsequently ceased filing returns, failing to comply for a consecutive period of six months, from July to December 2022. Consequently, the department issued the SCN dated 03.02.2023 for the cancellation of registration. As no response was received from the petitioner to the SCN, the department proceeded to pass the order for cancellation of registration on

18.04.2023. 57. The respondents aver that after the rejection of the petitioner’s request for cancellation of registration, the petitioner had a reasonable opportunity to file an appeal against the said order within the prescribed time frame, including the condonable period of three months plus one additional month. However, the appeal was filed beyond this permissible limit, leading to its rejection by the Appellate Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:07.02.2025 15:10:30 W.P.(C) 14279/2024 & Connected Matters Authority. Furthermore, the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy available under the law by filing an application for revocation of the cancelled registration, which, it appears, was not exercised in this case. Reliance is placed on an order passed by the Apex Court in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise14; Garg Enterprises v. State of U.P.15; and Asst. Commr. (CT), LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd.16 ANALYSIS AND DECISION 58. Upon hearing learned counsels for parties and perusing the record, as well as the case law cited at the Bar, we find at the outset that the present writ petitions seeking an extension of the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act cannot be sustained in law. The reasons are not far to seek. Section 107 of the CGST Act provides as under: “Section 107. Appeals to Appellate Authority.- (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act by an adjudicating authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be prescribed within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person. (2) The Commissioner may, on his own motion, or upon request from the Commissioner of State tax or the Commissioner of Union territory tax, call for and examine the record of any proceedings in which an adjudicating authority has passed any decision or order under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the said decision or order and may, by order, direct any officer