Judicial Review of GST Registration Cancellations: Balancing Statutory Limits and Judicial Discretion
Ranjan Mehta
Helping Businesses and Corporates in GST litigation and Compliance | GST Expert | Lawyer | Chartered Accountant | Indirect Tax Consultant
CASE TITLE: Pandidorai Sethupathi Raja Vs Superintendent of Central Tax 2022 (09) GSTPanacea 530 HC Madras WP.No.14879 of 2022
FACTS:
The case involves 44 writ petitions challenging decisions made by the Central or State Commercial Tax Authorities under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, or the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. These petitions primarily concern the cancellation of GST registrations or the rejection of appeals due to delayed filing. Previous court rulings have shown leniency by restoring canceled registrations under certain conditions, but the issue persists with continuous filings. Notably, in the case of M. Mallika Mahal vs. The Commissioner of Central GST, the court granted relief by extending the limitation period for appeals due to the pandemic, based on a Supreme Court judgment.
JUDGMENT:
The court concurs with the GST Departments that the benefits of registration restoration cannot be indefinite, as statutory remedies have specific time limitations. While High Courts have jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure justice, they generally do not extend statutory deadlines. However, exceptions can be made based on valid reasons for delays. The Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited supports adhering to statutory limitations. The court's decision balances respecting these limits with judicial discretion to ensure fairness in individual cases.
CONCLUSION:
Despite past rulings that restored canceled registrations, the problem remains ongoing. In the case of M. Mallika Mahal vs. The Commissioner of Central GST, the court extended the appeal period due to the pandemic, citing a Supreme Court judgment. The court recognized the GST Departments' argument that registration restorations must have time limits as per statutory remedies. While High Courts have the authority under Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure justice, they generally do not extend statutory deadlines. Nevertheless, exceptions can be made for justified delays.