J.K Infratech VS Additional Commissioner

The case involves a challenge to an order dated July 16, 2021, issued by the Additional Commissioner Grade II (Appeal), Commercial Tax, Sonbhadra. This order dismissed appeal no. GST-09/2021 filed by the petitioner against an earlier decision dated September 17, 2019, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Sector-3, Commercial Tax, Sonbhadra. The Assistant Commissioner’s decision had cancelled the petitioner’s registration. The Appeal Authority dismissed the appeal on grounds of being time-barred.

1. The matter was heard with Shri Aditya Pandey, representing the petitioner, and Shri Jagdish Mishra, the learned Standing Counsel.

2. The challenge pertains to the order dated 16th July 2021 issued by the Additional Commissioner Grade II (Appeal), Commercial Tax, Sonbhadra. This order dismissed appeal no. GST-09/2021 filed by the petitioner against the earlier order dated 17th September 2019 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Sector-3, Commercial Tax, Sonbhadra, which had cancelled the petitioner’s registration. The appeal was dismissed on grounds of being time-barred.

3. Upon hearing arguments from both parties and reviewing the case record, it was revealed that the registration cancellation order dated 17th September 2019 was issued ex-parte following a notice purportedly served via the common portal. The petitioner contended that they were unaware of the notice and thus couldn’t respond to it. Consequently, the ex-parte order cancelling the petitioner’s registration was issued on 17th September 2019. It is claimed that this order was again purportedly served via the common portal on the same date. However, no physical copy of this order dated 17th September 2019 was ever physically served on the petitioner.

Additionally, the proceedings involved a discussion on the Government of Uttar Pradesh.

The matter was heard with representation from Shri Aditya Pandey, counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Jagdish Mishra, Standing Counsel.

The challenge pertains to an order dated July 16, 2021, issued by the Additional Commissioner Grade II (Appeal), Commercial Tax, Sonbhadra. This order dismissed appeal no. GST-09/2021 filed by the petitioner against an earlier decision dated September 17, 2019, by the Assistant Commissioner, Sector-3, Commercial Tax, Sonbhadra. The latter decision had canceled the petitioner’s registration. The appeal was dismissed by the Appeal Authority on grounds of being time-barred.

After hearing arguments from both parties and examining the records, it is evident that the registration cancellation order dated September 17, 2019, was issued ex-parte following a notice purportedly served through the common portal. The petitioner claimed lack of knowledge regarding the notice and thus did not respond, leading to the ex-parte cancellation of registration on September 17, 2019. The petitioner asserts that they were notified of this order again through the common portal on the same day, but no physical copy of the order was served directly to them. Meanwhile, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued Government Order no. 792 dated July 29, 2020, stipulating that in cases similar to the present one, orders would be deemed served on August 31, 2020. Consequently, the period for instituting appeals and related actions was suspended by various subsequent orders.

The matter was heard with Shri Aditya Pandey, representing the petitioner, and Shri Jagdish Mishra, the learned Standing Counsel.

The challenge pertains to an order dated July 16, 2021, issued by the Additional Commissioner Grade II (Appeal), Commercial Tax, Sonbhadra. This order dismissed appeal no. GST-09/2021 filed by the petitioner against an earlier decision dated September 17, 2019, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Sector-3, Commercial Tax, Sonbhadra, which had canceled the petitioner’s registration. The appeal was dismissed by the Appeal Authority on grounds of being time-barred.

After hearing arguments from both sides and examining the records, it became evident that the registration cancellation order dated September 17, 2019, was passed ex-parte. This followed a notice purportedly served via the common portal, to which the petitioner claimed lack of knowledge and thus did not respond. Consequently, an ex-parte order was issued on September 17, 2019, canceling the petitioner’s registration. Although claimed to have been served via the common portal on the same day, no physical copy of the order dated September 17, 2019, was physically served on the petitioner.

Meanwhile, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued Government Order no. 792 on July 29, 2020, stipulating that in cases similar to the present one, where service of orders is in question, such service would be deemed to have occurred on August 31, 2020. Furthermore, various orders issued by the Supreme Court and this Court suspended the period of limitation for instituting appeals during the period from March 15, 2020, to March 14, 2021.

In the matter heard before the court, Shri Aditya Pandey, representing the petitioner, and Shri Jagdish Mishra, as the learned Standing Counsel, presented arguments. The challenge pertained to the order dated 16th July 2021 issued by the Additional Commissioner Grade II (Appeal), Commercial Tax, Sonbhadra. This order dismissed appeal no. GST-09/2021 filed by the petitioner against the cancellation of their registration by the Assistant Commissioner, Sector-3, Commercial Tax, Sonbhadra, in an order dated 17th September 2019. The dismissal by the Appeal Authority was on grounds of being time-barred.

Upon reviewing the submissions and the record, it was revealed that the registration cancellation order dated 17th September 2019 was passed ex-parte following a notice purportedly served via the common portal. The petitioner, however, claimed lack of knowledge of the notice and hence did not respond, leading to the ex-parte cancellation of registration. Despite the order purportedly being served through the common portal on 17th September 2019, no physical copy was received by the petitioner. Subsequently, Government Order no. 792 dated 29th July 2020 by the Government of U.P. stipulated that in cases similar to the present one, orders would be deemed to have been served on 31st August 2020. Furthermore, due to various orders by the Supreme Court and the High Court, the period from 15th March 2020 to 14th March 2021 was considered as a period of limitation suspension.

Based on these facts, the petition argued that under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, the limitation to file a first appeal was three months, extendable by condonable delay of up to one month. Assuming the order of 17th September 2019 was served on 31st August 2020, and considering the suspension of limitation from 15th March 2020 to 14th March 2021, the period for filing an appeal commenced on 15th March 2021. Consequently, the appeal filed on 19th March 2021 was well within the permissible timeframe.

Therefore, the petitioner contended that the petition should be allowed on the grounds that the appeal was filed within the stipulated period as per the law.

In the matter heard before the court, Shri Aditya Pandey, representing the petitioner, and Shri Jagdish Mishra, as the learned Standing Counsel, presented arguments. The petitioner challenged the order dated July 16, 2021, issued by the Additional Commissioner Grade II (Appeal), Commercial Tax, Sonbhadra. This order dismissed the petitioner’s appeal (GST-09/2021) against the decision dated September 17, 2019, by the Assistant Commissioner, Sector-3, Commercial Tax, Sonbhadra, which had cancelled the petitioner’s registration. The appeal was dismissed by the Appeal Authority citing it as time-barred.

After hearing both parties and examining the records, it emerged that the registration cancellation order dated September 17, 2019, was issued ex-parte following a notice claimed to have been served via the common portal. The petitioner alleged lack of awareness of this notice, leading to the ex-parte cancellation of registration. While the physical copy of the order was never directly served, the government of U.P. issued Government Order no. 792 on July 29, 2020, deeming service of such orders in cases similar to this to have occurred on August 31, 2020. Additionally, the period from March 15, 2020, to March 14, 2021, saw the suspension of limitation periods due to various orders from the Supreme Court and the local court.

Based on these facts, the petition argued that the appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, had a statutory limitation of three months, extendable by one month for condonation of delay. Considering the deemed service date of August 31, 2020, and the suspension of limitations, the appeal filed on March 19, 2021, fell within the permissible timeframe.

Consequently, the court found merit in the petitioner’s arguments and allowed the petition. The impugned order dated July 16, 2021, was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the appeal authority for reconsideration of the petitioner’s appeal dated March 19, 2021, on its merits, treating it as having been filed within the prescribed time limits. Thus, the present petition was allowed accordingly.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: