Allowed

Pawan Fabrics v. Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Dec 2024CWP/8187/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST registration cancellation appeal was rejected as time-barred. The High Court condoned the delay in view of the petitioner's illness and medical papers, relying on its Vasudeva Engineering decision and Tecnimont, and directed the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits without examining limitation, within three months.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing GST appeal condoned; Joint Commissioner (Appeals) to decide appeal on merits without limitation objection, expeditiously within three months.

Pawan Fabrics Vs Commissioner, Central Goods… — GST and Indirect Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CWP-8187-2024 (O&M)

¶2

Page 1 of 4

¶3

102

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CM-20378-CWP-2024 and CM-19625-CWP-2024 in/and CWP-8187-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.12.2024

¶6

PAWAN FA B RICS

¶7

. . . . Petitione r Vs.

¶8

COMMISSI O NER, CENTRAL GOODS AN D SERVICES TAX AND OTHERS

¶9

. . . . Respondent s

¶10

****

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

¶12

¶13

Present: M r. Mukul Singla, Advocate f or the applicant/petitioner.

¶14

M r. Sourabh Goel, Sr. Standing C ounsel with M s. Geetika Sharma, Advocate M s. Anju Bansal, Advocate f or the respondents/Revenue.

¶15

¶16

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

¶17

CM-19625-CWP-2024

¶18

A pplication for placing on recor d reply on behalf of respondents

¶19

is allowed, s u bject to all just exceptions.

¶20

R egistry to place the same at ap p ropriate place.

¶21

CM-20378-CWP-2024

¶22

P resent application has been file d for early hearing of the main

¶23

case.

¶24

F or the reasons stated in the app l ication, the same is allowed. M ain case is preponed and taken up today itself.

¶25

MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.19 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CWP-8187-2024 (O&M)

¶27

Page 2 of 4

¶28

CWP-8187-2024 (O&M)

¶29

Heard b oth the counsel on merits.

¶30

Learne d counsel for the petitioner sub m its that the appeal preferred b y the pet i tioner was solely rejected on t he ground of having been file d after the period of limitation had expir e d.

¶31

Learne d counsel submits that it was n o t to the knowledge of the Join t Comm i ssioner (Appeals), the circu m stances as mentioned by th e petitio n er and noted in the order in app e al, which were as under:

¶32

“Second lock down effecte d my business and put me i n mental stress. I faced lot of c h allenges to recover the m oney from debtors and suffered t h e burden of creditors. I s uffered with heavy loses. I was mentally disturbed and u sing pills to recover. Durin g this period due to u nawareness and mess with problems I missed my duty t o wards filling returns and my nu m ber was cancelled. Now I little bit recovered from financial loss and want to start m y business again. So kindly give me a chance to revoke m y GST registration for restart my business with same GST n umber.”

¶33

Learne d counsel submits that the peti t ioner had been unwell, and h e has als o placed medical treatment papers before us to submit that th e delay d eserves to be condoned. He relies on the judgment passed b y this C o urt in the case of M/s Vasudeva Engineering v. The Union of India and others CWP-27468-2023 & other connected cases , decide d on 24.10.2024, wherein we have held a s under:

¶34

““3. The provisions of th e said Act, 2017 are for t h e purpose of providing relief to the businessman in an

¶35

MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.19 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

CWP-8187-2024 (O&M)

¶37

Page 3 of 4

¶38

a ppropriate matter where the d e mand may have been r aised wrongfully or illegally by pr e ferring an appeal. If on a ccount of delay which may occur due to several reasons, r elating to business affairs, the b u sinessman is precluded fr om filing of an appeal, he/she wo u ld become remedy less. T he cancellation of registration of GST has cascading ef fect on all the other businessma n too who are receiving t h e goods from the concerned b u sinessmen whose GST r egistration has been cancelle d . Therefore, in these c ircumstances, it is essential th a t a finality should be a rrived at between the decision t a ken for cancellation of t h e registration and also at the sa m e time remedy should be a vailable which is efficacious to t h e concerned aggrieved p erson.

¶39

4. Accordingly, we hold that the powers to hear t h e appeal in terms of Section 107 of the Act would not be s ubject to filing of an appeal wit h in the time prescribed w herein, it would not in any mann e r deprive a person from c laiming the right of hearing of a n appeal by filing of a w rit petition before this Court for c o ndonation of delay.

¶40

5. Now considering the aforesaid issue which is p urely legal, we find that no reply from the respondents is r equired to be filed and we condo n ed the delay also as the p etitioner(s) have already sub m itted the pre-deposit a mount for hearing of the appeal.”

¶41

Learne d counsel for the respondents o p poses the petition, and submit s that th e delay is fatal, and appeal ca n not be heard on account of th e delay caused.

¶42

We ha v e considered the submissions a nd find that so far as the orde r passed by the appellate authority rejec t ing the appeal on the ground o f

¶43

MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.19 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶44

CWP-8187-2024 (O&M)

¶45

Page 4 of 4

¶46

limitat i on is concerned, the action c a nnot be said to be unjustified . Howe v er, taking into consideration the judgment passed by th e Supre m e Court in the case of M/s Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and others, 2019 INSC 1054 , we have taken a view in M/s Vasudeva Engineering as above (supr a ).

¶47

In vie w thereto and considering the d o cuments and medical conditio n of the petitioner, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing o f appeal, and accordingly we direct the J oint Commissioner (Appeals) t o decide the appeal on merits witho u t delving on the question o f limitat i on. It is directed that both the p a rties shall be given opportunit y of fai r hearing, and the appeal s h all be decided expeditiously , prefera b ly within a period of three mo n ths from today.