$~52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 15.07.2024 + W.P.(C) 9516/2024, CM APPL.39030/2024 M/S. ELASTO RUBBER PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vibhas Kumar Jha, Mr. Rajat Pandey and Ms. Manju Pandey, Advs.

versus THE COMMISIIONER OF SGST DELHI & ORS ......Respondents Through: Mr. Udit Malik, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (Oral)

1. Issue notice. Learned counsel for respondents accepts notice.

2. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the order dated 28.06.2024 (hereafter the impugned order), whereby the petitioner’s appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, (CGST Act, 2017/DGST Act) was rejected on the ground of delay.

3. The petitioner was registered with the GST Authorities with effect from 01.07.2017 and was assigned Goods and Services Identification Number (GSTIN) - 07AAACE6120CIZB.

4. The petitioner claims that it regularly filed its GST Returns for the tax period 2017-2021. However, there were certain medical issues in his family Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 9516/2024 Page 1 of 5 By:KAMLA RAWAT Signing Date:24.07.2024 resulting due to the outbreak of COVID-19 and there were certain defaults in statutory compliances.

5. The petitioner states his business suffered during the pandemic. He states that consultant engaged to file GST Returns for the period 2021-22 did not inform him about the notices sent by the GST Department and placed on the web portal.

6. The petitioner fairly admits that he was remiss in failing/neglecting to file the returns required during the said period.

7. The proper office issued a Show Cause Notice dated 08.10.2022 (hereafter the SCN) calling upon the petitioner to show cause why its GST registration should not be cancelled on account of failure to file returns for a continuous period of six months.

8. The petitioner was directed to furnish its reply within a period of seven days of service of notice and to appear before the proper officer on

07.11.2022.

9. The petitioner was also put to notice that if he failed to file the reply or failed to appear before the concerned officer on the appointed date and time, the matter would be decided ex-parte on the basis of the available record and on merits.

10. The petitioner’s GST registration was also suspended with effect from the date of notice – 08.10.2022.

11. The petitioner states that he did not receive the SCN and also failed to notice the same on its GST portal. He explained his failure to do so on account of outbreak of COVID-19.

12. Since the petitioner did not respond to the SCN or take immediate steps to comply with the provisions of the GST Act by filing its returns, the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled by an order dated 21.08.2023 (hereafter the impugned cancellation order) on the ground that he had failed to furnish the details within the prescribed period.

13. It is important to note that in terms of the impugned cancellation order, the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled ab initio with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017.

14. The petitioner claims that he was also unaware of the said order and became aware of the same subsequently. The petitioner claims that immediately on becoming aware of the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal (ARN No. AD070324083785R dated 19.03.2024) before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act/DGST Act, impugning the order dated 21.08.2023.

15. The petitioner states that its business was interrupted on account of the pandemic and he intends to re-commence the same.

16. The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by the impugned order solely on the ground that it was not filed within the prescribed period.

17. It is material to note that the SCN, whereby the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the petitioner’s GST registration should not be cancelled, did not specifically state that the petiti