Karnataka High Court Orders Restoration of Cancelled GST Registration Despite Time-Barred Appeal

The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Sri T.V. Basavaraju against the Superintendent of Central Tax and another challenging cancellation of GST registration and rejection of a delayed appeal as barred by limitation.

Registration bearing No.29ACNPB9659F1Z4 had been obtained on 1 July 2017 and continued until proceedings initiated through a show cause notice dated 28 December 2019 drew a reply dated 7 January 2020.

He told the court unavoidable circumstances kept him from the personal hearing fixed thereafter, disclosing sufficient cause.

Following the missed hearing, Respondent No.1 passed cancellation order No.ZA2901200828130 on 28 January 2020.

Almost four years later, the appeal filed on 7 December 2023 was rejected on 12 December 2023 on the ground of limitation by Respondent No.2 in GST APPEAL No.193/23-24 A-II (ADC), produced as Annexure-B.

Through the petition, jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was invoked to seek certiorari to quash both the orders at Annexures-A and B, to seek mandamus to restore the registration, to seek a direction to call for records, and to seek such other relief as deemed fit in the interests of justice and equity after hearing counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents.

Time-bar did not merge orders

In dealing with the explanation, the order records adoption of a justice-oriented approach to the reason for absence at the hearing.

On maintainability, the court said rejection of a statutory appeal solely on limitation did not result in merger of the original cancellation order with the appellate order.

That reading meant the limitation rejection did not prevent exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Alongside the explanation, the court took note of the undertaking to file pending GST returns and to pay outstanding and up-to-date taxes.

The order expressly confined the relief to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the matter and said the decision could not be treated as precedent or as having precedential value for any other purpose.

Restoration was directed to be carried out within four weeks subject to filing of those returns and payment within the specified period.