HC Grants Liberty to File Revocation Application Despite Lapsed Appeal Deadline.

HC Grants Liberty to File Revocation Application Despite Lapsed Appeal Deadline.

Issue

Can a High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, grant a taxpayer the “liberty” to file a fresh application for revocation of their GST registration, even after the taxpayer has failed to apply for revocation in time and has had a subsequent, belated appeal rejected?

Facts

• The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled by the proper officer (in Form GST REG-19) for failure to furnish returns.
• The petitioner did not apply for revocation of this cancellation within the time permitted under Section 30 of the CGST Act.
• Instead, the petitioner filed a belated appeal, which was rejected by the appellate authority (presumably as time-barred).
• The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the High Court, not to challenge the merits of the cancellation, but to seek permission (“liberty”) to go back to the first step and file a revocation application.
• The petitioner also expressed willingness to discharge any outstanding tax dues.

Decision

• The High Court disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner’s request.
• It noted that the petitioner had taken the incorrect procedural step (belated appeal) instead of the correct one (revocation application).
• The court granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh revocation application under Rule 23(1) within two weeks.
• If such an application is filed, the competent authority was directed to consider and dispose of it in accordance with the law.
• This relief was implicitly conditional on the petitioner discharging any outstanding tax liabilities.

Key Takeaways

• Writ Jurisdiction for Procedural Justice: The High Court can use its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to provide a procedural remedy, even when statutory deadlines have been missed, to ensure substantial justice is done.
• Revocation is the Primary Remedy: The judgment highlights that the correct statutory path after a cancellation is to first seek revocation under Section 30. Filing an appeal without first seeking revocation can be a procedural misstep.
• Pragmatic Approach: The court adopted a pragmatic approach by allowing the taxpayer a final opportunity to revive their registration, thereby enabling them to continue their business, provided they comply with the law and pay their outstanding dues.
• Compliance is a Precondition: The court’s directive is tied to the taxpayer’s obligation to clear their outstanding tax liabilities, balancing the relief granted with the interests of the revenue.