GST cancellation order effected online in terms of Section 169(1)(d) is a valid method: HC

The petitioner has challenged an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (ST), the appellate authority under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Act, 2017 (in short ‘Act’).

The petitioner was engaged in the business of food take-away and was registered under the provisions of the Act. While this is so, he claims that his business had been affected by the Covid-19 pandemic and on account of this, he had not filed any returns. He had been struggling, according to him, with financial issues abroad as well.

In light of the statutory provisions requiring filing of statutory returns within the periods stipulated and the petitioner’s admitted defaults, the second respondent, i.e., the Assessing Authority of the petitioner, issued a notice of cancellation on 06.07.2022, initiated online through the official portal.

The petitioner neither submitted any response nor appeared for a personal hearing that had been fixed in the aforesaid notice. There is a tentative statement of the petitioner that he had been unaware of the same.

However, this Court has taken a view in W.P.No.25666 of 2022 that service effected online in terms of Section 169(1)(d) of the Act is a valid method/mode of service and this order has attained finality as on date. R2 thus passed an order dated 21.07.2022 cancelling the registration of the petitioner, also uploaded on the same day in the official portal.

The petitioner claims to have thereafter approached the second respondent seeking revocation of the cancellation. He was informed by the Assessing Authority that the request for revocation was made after the statutory period and hence proceeded to file an appeal before the appellate authority. An appeal had thus been filed on 08.02.2023.

As per the court, the provisions of Section 107 of the Act deal with ‘Appeal‘ and provide that an appeal be filed as against any order of the State Goods and Services Tax Act within a period of 90 days. There is a condonable period of one month after the aforesaid period of 90 days, for which the authority may grant condonation, if convinced by the explanation set out by the petitioner. The appeal of petitioner has been filed after a period of 2 months and 17 days, over and above the statutory limitation of 90 + 30 days.

In light of the above admitted position, the dismissal of the appeal  is seen to be in order. The petitioner, to be noted, has set out no explanation, let alone justifiable explanation, for the condonation of even the one month provided and thus the further delay of 2 months and 17 days over and above the statutory limitation is fatal to its case.

For Official Judgment Download PDF Given Below: