ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hardik Vora for the petitioner and Ms. Tanushree Shrimal, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Tanushree Shrimal, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today itself.

3. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for directions for quashing and setting aside the Order-in- Appeal dated 19.04.2024 passed under the provisions of Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).

4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is that the petitioner is a proprietary concern engaged in trading of chemical products and, inter alia, registered with the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Department with effect from 15.06.2020. It is the case of the petitioner that he received a show-cause notice in Form GST REG-17/31 dated 15.12.2021 alleging that the petitioner has indulged itself in issuing invoice without supply of goods and/ or service, which is in violation of provision of the Act and, therefore, the registration number of the petitioner was proposed to be cancelled. The petitioner vide reply dated 20.12.2021, submitted its reply to the show-cause notice. However, by way of order dated 01.01.2022, the registration number of the petitioner was cancelled.

4.1 Being aggrieved by the order dated 01.01.2022, the petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent in Form GST APL-01, on 06.06.2022, on the ground that the petitioner had sufficient documents to prove that the purchases were genuine and, therefore, cancellation of the registration was not warranted. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent without providing an opportunity of being heard, passed the impugned order on 19.04.2024, only on the ground that the appeal had been filed after a period, as prescribed under the provisions of Section 107 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is preferred.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Hardik Modh appearing of the petitioner has submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner was within the period of 4 months as prescribed under Section 107 of the Act.

5.1 It is submitted that order for cancellation of GST registration was passed on 01.01.2022 and the appeal was filed by the petitioner on 06.06.2022. Respondent No. 2, after considering the above dates, held that the appeal has been delayed by 67 days after considering the period of 4 months (3 months as provided under per section 107 (1) of the CGST Act and 1 month as per Section 107(4) of the CGST Act) and, therefore, cannot be entertained.

5.2 It is further submitted that the respondent No. 2 failed to appreciate that the time period of 01.01.2022 to 28.02.2022 is required to be excluded as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 10.01.2022 in SUO MOTU Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 before computing the period of delays.

5.3 It is submitted that in March, 2020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the difficulties that might be faced by the litigants in filing petitions/ applications/ suits/ appeals/ all other quasi proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any special laws (both Central and/or State) due to the outbreak of the COVID 19 pandemic and accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 10.01.2022 held that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation, as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.

5.4 It is further submitted that the Bombay High Court while dealing with a similar situation of delay in filing of appeal unde