Since the appeal itself has been dismissed on the ground of limitation, the writ remedy would not be available to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Section 29 of CGST Act, 2017— Registration ----- The petitioner challenged an order dated 21.09.2019, whereby, respondent cancelled the registration of the petitioner on the ground that he has failed to file his continuous returns for a period of over six months. The petitioner submitted that this order was issued without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This order came into the knowledge of petitioner after the lapse of about 477 days, when he had approached his GST consultant. The petitioner preferred an appeal as provided under Section 107, which was rejected on the ground of limitation by the impugned order dated 26.06.2021. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted and relied upon a full bench judgment of the Gujarat High Court, in respect of Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs. Union of India and prayed that the court can invoke its jurisdiction. The court observed that the orders under challenge cannot be said to be brought within the ambit of any of the exceptions culled out by the Full Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in order to enable the writ courts to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to scrutinize the principal order of cancellation of registration dated 21.09.2019.
Held that—The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Since the appeal itself has been dismissed on the ground of limitation, the writ remedy would not be available to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Section 29 of CGST Act, 2017— Registration ----- The petitioner challenged an order dated 21.09.2019, whereby, respondent cancelled the registration of the petitioner on the ground that he has failed to file his continuous returns for a period of over six months. The petitioner submitted that this order was issued without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This order came into the knowledge of petitioner after the lapse of about 477 days, when he had approached his GST consultant. The petitioner preferred an appeal as provided under Section 107, which was rejected on the ground of limitation by the impugned order dated 26.06.2021. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted and relied upon a full bench judgment of the Gujarat High Court, in respect of Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs. Union of India and prayed that the court can invoke its jurisdiction. The court observed that the orders under challenge cannot be said to be brought within the ambit of any of the exceptions culled out by the Full Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in order to enable the writ courts to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to scrutinize the principal order of cancellation of registration dated 21.09.2019.
Held that—The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petition.