1. Aggrieved by the impugned order Annexure P/2, dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Appeals Commissionerate, Raipur in Appeal Case No.138(GST)/2021, the present writ petition has been filed. Vide the said order the appellate authority has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 on the ground of limitation.

2. For proper understanding of the dispute it would be relevant to take note of the fact that the grievance of the petitioner was the order of cancellation of registration. The order of cancellation of registration was passed by the competent authority on 04.09.2019. The said order was an appealable order and the appeal was required to be filed within a period of three months and the act provided for another one months time with justifiable grounds if the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated 90 days time. As such, the appeal was required to be filed on 04.01.2020, however, in the instant case the petitioner establishment had preferred the appeal only on 22-26.07.2021. The appellate authority considering the unexplained inordinate delay in the filing of the appeal rejected the same vide the impugned order Annexure P/2 dated 30.09.2021 only on the ground of limitation.

3. At this juncture the counsel for the petitioner tried to convince the limitation aspect, relied upon Removal of Difficulties (ROD) issued by the Central Government on 25.06.2020 and the subsequent notification No.34/2021- Central Tax, dated 29.08.2021. Both these documents permitted the persons whose registration stood cancelled to move an appropriate application for revocation before the concerned authority. Initially the period for moving an application for revocation was permitted between 01.03.2020 to 31.03.2020 which was subsequently extended up till 31.08.2020.

4. The counsel for the petitioner further relied upon another circular issued by the State Government on 06.09.2021 which further stipulated certain guidelines in respect of applications covered under the scope of the aforementioned notification dated 29.08.2021. The said clarification issued on 06.09.2021, Annexure P/12 again was in respect of the permission that was granted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation of registration and which was extended to even those persons whose application for revocation earlier stood rejected and also in respect of those persons whose appeal also was either pending or decided earlier.

5. However, perusal of the pleadings would reveal that inspite of all these circulars and notifications that have been issued by the Central Government the petitioner as such has not moved any application for revocation during the period that was extended by way of the aforesaid circulars and notifications. Without moving an application for revocation the petitioner has straightaway thought of preferring an appeal before the appellate authority and which now stands decided vide Annexure P/2 dated 30.09.2021. Without availing the remedy of revocation which was permissible under the ROD dated 25.06.2020 and subsequent notification dated 29.08.2021 followed by the clarificatory circular issued on 06.09.2021, the petitioner as such cannot claim any advantage of showing justification for the delay in the filing of the appeal beyond the permissible period of limitation under the Act.

6. Further contention of the petitioner also is that the petitioner was an IBC Company and for which there was a circular No.134/04/2020-GST dated 23.03.2020 which provided that the companies under IBC the registration could not have been cancelled.

7. This circular again would not come to the rescue of the petitioner for the reason that the registration of the petitioner already stood cancelled on 04.09.2019 i.e. much before the said circular dated 23.03.2020 came into force. Under the then prevailing provision of law, the only recourse available to the petitioner was to promptly challenge the same in accordance with law before the appellate authority within the time limit stipulated therein.

8. The petitioner for reasons best known did not choose to prefer an appeal during the period of limitation and also within a reasonable period of time. The appeal has been filed after more than 1 and ½ years of time before the appellate authority who thereafter was not having any further powers to condone the inordinate delay that had occurred in the filing of the appeal. The impugned order in the given circumstances seems to be fair, reasonable, proper and justified and does not warrant any interference.

9. The writ petition thus fails and is accordingly rejected.