Strict Enforcement of Statutory Limitation Under Section 107 CGST Act: Non‑Condonable Delay in Filing Appeal Post GST Registration Cancellation

Introduction

In W.P.(T) No. 6208 of 2024, decided on December 17, 2024 by the Jharkhand High Court (Coram: Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan), M/s. Bokna Raiyat Rojgar Committee (a partnership firm engaged in transportation and loading/unloading services) challenged two adverse orders under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017:

The cancellation of its GST registration certificate (Form GST REG‑19) for non‑filing of returns for six continuous months (S. 29 CGST Act).
The rejection of its statutory appeal (Form GSTAPL‑04) by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of delay beyond the three‑month limitation period prescribed under Section 107(1) CGST Act.

The petitioner attributed its non‑compliance to cash‑flow difficulties (service recipients withholding bills) and medical hardships affecting daily operations. The firm sought quashing of both impugned orders and revival of its GST registration.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court dismissed the writ petition in its entirety. It held:

The cancellation order under Section 29 CGST Act was valid: the petitioner failed to file returns for six continuous months despite a show‑cause notice and its reply was not entertained for reasons recorded in the cancellation order.
The appeal rejection was correct: Section 107(1) prescribes a three‑month time limit for filing appeals, with a maximum condonation window of one additional month. The petitioner’s appeal was filed after an unexplained delay of approximately 17 months, well beyond the statutory limit and beyond the condonation window.
No interference was warranted because the statutory timelines are mandatory and cannot be extended by judicial gloss.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed without costs.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The judgment itself does not quote specific case authorities, but it adheres to well‑settled principles reflected in leading decisions on limitation and statutory compliance under indirect tax statutes. Notable Supreme Court rulings on mandatory periods include:

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Zerox India Ltd. (2008) – on the non‑extendability of statutory limitation periods.
Union of India v. B. Krishna & Bros. (2022) – affirming that condonation beyond a legislated grace period is impermissible.
Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (2004) – general principle that a statute’s limitation period cannot be enlarged by judicial discretion.

These precedents reinforce the mandatory nature of time limits under tax statutes, including the CGST Act.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeded in two steps:

Cancellation Under Section 29: Section 29(2)(c) empowers cancellation if a registered person fails to file returns for six successive months. The respondent‑authority issued a show‑cause notice (Form GSTREG‑17/31) and, after considering (but ultimately rejecting) the petitioner’s explanation, passed the cancellation order (Form GSTREG‑19). The Court found no infirmity—non‑filing was admitted and the reply did not persuade the authority to maintain registration.
Limitation Under Section 107: Section 107(1) prescribes a 3‑month limitation for appeals to the appellate authority, with a maximum condonation of 30 days if “sufficient cause” is shown. The petitioner filed its appeal roughly 17 months after the cancellation order, without any plausible explanation or application for condonation within the one‑month grace period. The appellate authority’s rejection on limitation grounds was thus upheld as mandatory and unimpeachable.

3. Impact

This judgment underscores the following propositions for future GST litigation:

Strict Adherence to Statutory Timelines: Registered persons cannot overlook or belatedly excuse the timelines for filing returns or appeals under the CGST Act.
No Judicial Extension of Limitation: Courts and tribunals must enforce the statutory periods without engrafting any equitable relief beyond what the statute explicitly allows.
Due Diligence by Assessees: Taxpayers must proactively monitor compliance and file appeals promptly; internal or external difficulties (cash flow issues, medical conditions, accountant’s lapses) will not justify excusable delay beyond the one‑month condonation window.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Show‑Cause Notice (Form GSTREG‑17/31): A formal communication requiring the taxpayer to explain lapses (e.g., non‑filing of returns).
Cancellation of Registration (Section 29): Automatic removal of a taxable person’s registration for non‑compliance, leading to loss of input credit eligibility and the inability to legally supply taxable services.
Statutory Appeal Window (Section 107): A fixed three‑month period from the date of the order under appeal, extendable by maximum one month upon “sufficient cause.”
Condonation: A limited extension of time granted by the appellate authority; unlike general equitable relief, it cannot exceed the one‑month grace period specified in the statute.

Conclusion

The Jharkhand High Court’s decision in M/s. Bokna Raiyat Rojgar Committee v. Union of India crystallizes a fundamental GST principle: statutory timelines for compliance and appeals are sacrosanct and non‑extendable beyond the narrow window expressly provided. Taxpayers must therefore exercise diligence in filing returns and lodging appeals within prescribed periods. This ruling will serve as a clear warning that neither operational setbacks nor health crises can justify inordinate delays under the CGST Act.