1. The record shows that the above-captioned writ petition was dismissed in default on account of non-prosecution, on 09.03.2022.

1.1 However, upon an application being moved by the petitioner i.e., CM 15702/2022, the order dated 09.03.2022 was recalled via order dated 30.03.2022, and the writ petition was restored to its original number and position.

2. Mr R. Ramachandran, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondents, says that the impugned order dated 06.12.2019 need not be disturbed.

2.1. The record shows that the impugned order was predicated on the show cause notice dated 22.10.2019. The said show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on account of its failure to file the Goods and Services Tax (GST) returns for a continuous period of six months. It is this, which led to the adjudicating authority, passing an order for cancellation of petitioner’s registration on 06.12.2019.

2.2. The record also shows that the petitioner had carried the matter in appeal. The appeal met the same fate, and the order dated 06.12.2019 was confirmed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeal-II, Delhi, via order dated 01.10.2021.

2.3. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

3. According to Mr. Ramachandran, the appeal was also not maintainable, which is, something that has been noted in the appellate order dated 01.10.2021, as it was lodged beyond the period prescribed for limitation.

3.1. Mr. Ramachandran says that the appellate authority i.e., Additional Commissioner has no power to condone the delay beyond a period of one month, after the lapse of a period of three months. For this purpose, our attention has been drawn to Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.

3.2. What is not disputed by Mr. Mukul Chandra, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, is that, in this case, the appeal had been filed, after a lapse of nineteen [19] months.

4. Given this position, we had queried Mr. Ramachandran, as to whether the petitioner can re-register himself.

4.1. Mr. Ramachandran says that since the petitioner’s registration stood cancelled via order dated 06.12.2019, he can apply for fresh registration under Section 25 of the CGST Act, 2017.

4.2. It is also the submission of Mr. Ramachandran that the impugned order dated 06.12.2019, as confirmed by the appellate order dated 01.10.2021, will not come in the way of petitioner seeking fresh registration.

4.3. The statement of Mr. Ramachandran is taken on record.

5. Given this position, Mr. Chandra says that since, in any event, there is no outstanding tax liability, as depicted in the order dated 06.12.2019 i.e., the order concerning cancellation of registration, the petitioner will take steps for fresh registration, having regard to the statement made by Mr. Ramachandran.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner will have the liberty to apply for fresh GST registration, as per the extant regime contained in the CGST Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

7. The writ petition and the pending application are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.