ORDER

( Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan )

Heard Mr. Narendra Kumar.T, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3. Also heard Mr. V.Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 6; and Mr. B.Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India representing respondent No.5.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 09.09.2020 passed by respondent No.2 as well as the order-in-appeal dated 31.01.2023 passed by respondent No.1.

3. By the order dated 09.09.2020, the goods and services tax (GST) registration of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that petitioner had not filed GST returns for more than six months. Appeal filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1 against such cancellation order has been rejected by the order-in-appeal dated 31.01.2023.

4. Petitioner before us is a proprietary concern engaged in the business of providing professional actress services and is registered under the GST laws having GSTN ID 36BLMPS3636N2ZA.

5. Respondent No.2 issued show cause notice dated 15.04.2019 to the petitioner to show cause as to why her GST registration should not be cancelled on the ground that petitioner had not filed GST returns for a continuous period of six months. Interestingly, petitioner was directed to appear before respondent No.2 on 27.11.2018 which date had long expired much before issuance of show cause notice on 15.04.2019.

6. It appears that petitioner had submitted reply on 25.04.2019 which was not accepted by respondent No.2 whereafter impugned order dated 09.09.2020 was passed cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner.

7. Appeal filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1 was unsuccessful. By the order-in-appeal dated 31.01.2023, the appeal was rejected on the ground that the date for filing application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration had already expired.

8. Issue raised in this writ petition is no more res integra.

9. This Court in Nithya Constructions v. Union of India 2022 (7) TMI 186 held as follows:

3. We find that issue raised in this writ petition is covered by a decision of this Court dated 27.06.2022 in W.P.No.27071 of 2022 (M/s. Chenna Krishnama Charyulu Karampudi v. Additional Commissioner (Appeals-I)).

4. Relevant portion of the aforesaid order dated 27.06.2022 is extracted hereunder:-

“3. Petitioner is a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of carrying out works contract services.

It is registered with the Goods and Services Tax (GST) authorities in the State of Telangana. By the order dated 22.01.2019, respondent No.2 cancelled registration of the petitioner under GST. Against this order of cancellation, petitioner preferred appeal before respondent No.1 assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 22.01.2019. By the order dated 19.04.2022, respondent No.1 as the appellate authority has held that the appeal was filed beyond the period of extended limitation. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

4. Hence, the writ petition.

5. On a query by the Court as to why petitioner has not approached the Goods and Services Tax Tribunal (GST Tribunal) under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (briefly, ‘CGST Act’ hereinafter), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date no GST Tribunal has been constituted.

6. We have perused the order dated 19.04.2022. This is an order passed by the first appellate authority under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act. As per subsection (1) of Section 107 of the CGST Act, limitation for filing appeal is three months from the date of communication of the order appealed against. Under subsection (4) of Section 107 of the CGST Act, the appellate authority may allow the appeal to be presented within a further period of one month, provided sufficient cause is shown by the appellant.

7. Though the lower appellate authority may be right in holding that while it may allow filing of an appeal beyond the limitation of three months for a further period of one month, therefore, by extension of limitation beyond the extended period of one month delay beyond the extended period of one month cannot be condoned, we are of the view that such a stand taken by respondent No.1 may adversely affect the petitioner. This is more so because respondent No.2 had suo motu cancelled the GST registration of the petitioner on the ground of non-filing of returns and as GST Tribunal has not been constituted under Section 109 of the CGST Act, petitioner would be left without any remedy.

8. We further find that the issue pertains to cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper if the entire matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 to reconsider the case of the petitioner and thereafter to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

9. In the light of the above and without expressing any opinion on merit, we remand the matter back to the file of respondent No.2 to consider the grievance expressed by the petitioner against cancellation of GST registration and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Needless to say, when the respondent No.2 hears the matter on remand, petitioner shall submit all the returns as per the statute.”

5. Accordingly and in the light of the above, we set aside the order dated 22.07.2019 as well as the order dated 25.02.2022 and remand the matter back to respondent No.3 to consider the grievance expressed by the petitioner against cancellation of GST registration and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Needless to say, when respondent No.3 hears the matter on remand, petitioner shall submit all the returns as per the statute.

10. Accordingly and in the light of the above, impugned orders dated 09.09.2020 and 31.01.2023 are hereby set aside. Matter is remanded back to respondent No.3 (now having jurisdiction) to consider the grievance expressed by the petitioner against cancellation of GST registration and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Needless to say, petitioner shall be given due opportunity of hearing and shall be permitted to submit the relevant returns as per the statute.

11. This disposes of the writ petition. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.