The court affirmed that limitations for appeals are extended as per Supreme Court directives, ensuring adherence to natural justice in procedural requirements, especially during prolonged non-filing periods.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)--This writ petition is directed against the appellate order dated 28.06.2021, passed by respondent no.1.

1.1. Besides the challenge to the aforementioned order i.e., Order-in-Appeal, challenge is also laid to the show-cause notice (SCN) dated 29.10.2019 and the order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the concerned authority, cancelling the petitioners' registration.

2. What is not in dispute before us is that the Order-in-Appeal passed by respondent no.1 is founded on the ground that the appeal was instituted beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

3. Mr Sandeep Chilana, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, has assailed the aforementioned Order-in-Appeal, the SCN and the order cancelling the registration of the petitioners, broadly, on the following grounds:

(i) Firstly, the limitation period stood extended by various orders passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu W.P(C.) No.3/2020.

(ii) Secondly, the SCN dated 29.10.2019, on which the order cancelling the registration was premised, is an unsigned order which directed the appearance of the petitioners' authorized representative on 04.11.2019, without indicating the venue at which the proceedings would be conducted.

(iii) Thirdly, the order cancelling registration dated 25.11.2019, suffers from the same defect as the SCN, i.e., it did not bear the signatures of the concerned authority i.e., the Superintendent, Ward 94.

(iv) Lastly, Rule 68 of the CGST Rules, 2017 [in short "2017 Rules"] required the respondent/revenue to issue a notice to the petitioners concerning the non-filing of returns for the period in issue, having regard to the fact that up until February 2019, the petitioners had been regularly filing its returns.

(iv)(a) The period during which the petitioners did not file their return, spans between February 2019 and November 2019. Therefore, before taking recourse to the draconian powers conferred on the respondents/revenue under Rule 22 of the 2017 Rules, notice under Rule 68 ought to have been issued, concerning the infraction in not filing returns for the aforementioned period.

4. In support of his submissions, it has also been indicated that the petitioners, although remiss, initially, in filing the returns for the period spanning between February 2019 and November 2019, appear to have filed their returns, with late fee on 30.04.2021.

5. On the other hand, Mr R. Ramachandran, who appears on behalf of the respondents/revenue, submitted that the conduct of the petitioners is such that no relief should be granted to them by this Court.

5.1. In this context, Mr Ramachandran has emphasized the fact that returns for the continuous period of six months, were not filed by the petitioners and therefore, the SCN was issued regarding the cancellation of the registration.

5.2. Mr Ramachandran contends that the procedure, as prescribed under the 2017 Rules, was adhered to, and therefore, no fault can be found with the action taken by the respondents/revenue of cancelling the petitioner's registration.

5.3. As regards the Order-in-Appeal, Mr Ramachandran contends that the period of non-filing the returns being prior to Covid-19 kicking in, the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.3/2020, will not be applicable in the petitioners' case.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. According to us, the crucial dates f