Orissa High CourtM/S. Durga Raman Patnaik vs Additional Commissioner on 13 October, 2022HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK.\n                       W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022\n                 (In the matter of an application underArticles 226and227of the Constitution of India, 1950)\n                                 ***M/S. DURGA RAMAN PATNAIK                                     Petitioner\n2ND LANE                                          Mr. Ramesh Chandra\nRAMAKRUSHNA NAGAR                                                  Jena,\nBERHAMPUR                                                 Advocate for\nODISHA - 760 001                                         the petitioner,\nREPRESENTED BY ITS\n                                                 Mr. Rudra Prasad Kar,\n                                                             Advocate,\nCS PRANAB KUMAR MISHRA                 ...\n                                                       Amicus Curiae\n                                                            assisted by\n                                                     Mr. Mark Wright,\n                                                             Advocate\n\n                                VERSUS\n\nADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER\nOF GST (APPEALS)\n(FIRST APPELLATE\nAUTHORITY)                                               Opposite parties\nHAVING HIS OFFICE                                    Mr. Subash Chandra\nAT GST BHAWAN                                                   Mohanty,\nC.R. BUILDING                                    Senior Standing Counsel\nRAJASWA VIHAR                                         (Central Goods and\nBHUBANESWAR                                         Services Tax, Central\n                                       ...\nODISHA - 751 007                                      Excise & Customs)\n& OTHERSThis matter is taken up by virtual/physical mode.Date of Hearing : 27.09.2022    ::    Date of Judgment : 13.10.2022\n\n\n                                                                  P.T.O.\n                                      :: 2 ::CORAM:MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH\n                                     AND\n\n                    MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN\n\n                               J UDG ME NT\n\nMurahari Sri Raman, J.--1.     The petitioner, proprietorship concern of Sri Durga Raman\n       Patnaik with legal name and trade name "DURGA RAMAN\n       PATNAIK" registered under the provisions of theCentral Goods\n       and Services Tax Act, 2017(referred to as "CGST Act"), while\n       assailing the Order dated 07.10.2021 passed in Appeal bearing\n       No.228/BBSR-GST/APPEAL/2021                by   the    Additional\n       Commissioner, GST (Appeals) (for brevity referred to as\n       "Appellate Authority") vide Annexure-1, questioned the propriety\n       of Order dated 21.08.2019 of Superintendent, Berhampur-I Range,\n       Berhampur Division (for short, "Registering Authority"), who, in\n       exercise of power underSection 29(2)(c)of the said Act, has\n       cancelled the registration (Annexure-4).2.     Fact leading the petitioner to approach this Court to beseech\n       invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction under the provisions of\n       Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, is that by\n       referring to reply dated 31.08.2019 submitted by the petitioner in\n       pursuance of terms of Show Cause Notice dated 21.08.2019, the\n       Superintendent of Ganjam-I Circle in Berhampur-I Range without\n       assigning any reason proceeded to cancel the registration, GSTIN:W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                      Page 2 of 70:: 3 ::21ALPPP8146E2ZY          on 15.10.2019 invoking provisions ofSection 29(2)(c)of the CGST Act with effect from 15.10.2019\n       inasmuch as there was non-filing of returns for consecutive period\n       of six months.2.1.   Instead of seeking revocation of cancellation of registration underSection 30of the CGST Act before the proper officer, assailing\n       aforementioned order dated 15.10.2019, the petitioner preferred\n       appeal underSection 107of the CGST Act on 05.08.2021 with a\n       delay of around 660 days which came to be rejected on\n       07.10.2021.2.2.   It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that while the\n       Appellate Authority made an observation in his Appellate Order\n       that application for revocation of cancellation of registration as\n       envisaged inSection 30of the CGST Act read with Rule 23 of the\n       Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (abbreviated as,\n       "CGST Rules") being not filed within prescribed period, instead\n       of rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation by taking\n       pedantic view, should have appreciated genuine difficulty faced\n       by not only the petitioner but also other similarly placed suppliers\n       and recipients and relegated him for availing the benefit of said\n       remedial recourse of revocation of order of cancellation of\n       registration under said provision as there is no outer limit provided\n       under afore-mentioned provisions and the delay for sufficient\n       reason being shown can be condoned.2.3.   Urging that the Appellate Authority ought to have shown\n       pragmatic approach by taking a lenient view, referring to\n       Notification No.19/2021-- Central Tax, dated 01.06.2021, issuedW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                        Page 3 of 70:: 4 ::by Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of\n       Revenue), Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, it has\n       been submitted that it has provided relief to the taxpayers by\n       reducing/waiving late fee for non-furnishing Form GSTR-3B for\n       the tax periods from July, 2017 to April, 2021, if the returns for\n       these tax periods are furnished between 01.06.2021 to 31.08.2021.\n       However, by virtue of Notification No. 33/2021-- Central Tax,\n       dated 29.08.2021, the last date to avail benefit of the amnesty\n       scheme was extended from 31.08.2021 to 30.11.2021.2.4.   Based on the multiple representations received, Government by\n       issue of Notification No. 34/2021-- Central Tax [GSR\n       No.600(E)], dated 29.08.2021 have also extended the timelines for\n       filing of application for revocation of cancellation of registration\n       to 30.09.2021, where the due date of filing of application for\n       revocation of cancellation of registration falls between 01.03.2020\n       to 31.08.2021. The extension was made applicable only in those\n       cases where registrations were cancelled under clause (b) or clause(c) of sub-section (2) ofSection 29of the CGST Act.2.5.   Such an extension by way of amnesty scheme and extension of\n       time limit for filing of application for revocation of cancellation of\n       registration was promulgated as a benevolent gesture of the\n       Government keeping in mind on the advent of GST regime with\n       effect from 01.07.2017 adverse situations were faced by\n       suppliers/recipients/taxpayers especially small taxpayers. Due to\n       lack of awareness regarding nuances of "strict compliance" of new\n       taxation policy, they could not file their returns in time. Such\n       difficulties were multiplied by outbreak of Severe AcuteW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                         Page 4 of 70:: 5 ::Respiratory Syndrome-associated corona virus (SARS-CoV)\n       leading to COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, such situation was\n       declared force majeure which led to promulgation of Section\n       168A by way of theCGST (Amendment) Act, 2020granting\n       power to the Government to extend time limit in special\n       circumstances.2.6.   It is, therefore, argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the\n       Appellate Authority was not powerless to grant opportunity to the\n       petitioner to deposit tax, interest coupled with penalty and late fee\n       and relegate him to approach the Registering Authority underSection 30of the CGST Act by condoning the delay as has been\n       done by this Court in very many cases, namely in the case of\n       Nirmani Engineers and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. The\n       Commissioner of CT&GST, Odisha and Others, W.P.(C)\n       No.15934 of 2021, wherein vide Order dated 05.05.2021, this\n       Court has observed as follows:"2.    Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for\n              Opposite Parties appearing on an advance notice states\n              that as long as delay in filing the appeal is condoned, and\n              provided the Petitioner complies with all the requirements\n              of paying the taxes due, the 3B Return Form filed by the\n              Petitioner will be accepted by the Opposite Parties.3.     In that view of the matter, the delay in Petitioner's invoking\n              the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services\n              Tax Rules (OGST Rules) is condoned and it is directed that\n              subject to the Petitioner depositing all the taxes due and\n              complying with other formalities, the GST return filed by\n              the Petitioner, provided it is filed on or before 5th July,\n              2021, will be accepted by the Opposite Parties."W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                        Page 5 of 70:: 6 ::2.7.   It is stated by the petitioner that in exercise of power underSection 128of the CGST Act, the amount of late fee payable by\n       registered person for failure to furnish return in Form GSTR-3B\n       for the month of July, 2017 onwards by the due date underSection\n       47has been waived by virtue of Notification No.76/2018--Central Tax, dated 31.12.2018 issued by the Government of India\n       in Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), whereby ninth\n       proviso has been inserted by way of amendment vide Notification\n       No.19/2021-- Central Tax, dated 01.06.2021, which is to the\n       following effect:"Provided also that for the registered persons who failed to\n       furnish the return in Form GSTR-3B for the months /quarter of\n       July, 2017 to April, 2021, by the due date but furnish the said\n       return between the period from the 1st day of June, 2021 to the 31st\n       day of August, 2021, the total amount of late fee underSection 47of the said Act, shall stand waived which is in excess of five\n       hundred rupees:"2.8.   Relying on said proviso, it is, therefore, asserted that had the\n       registration been live, the petitioner would have the occasion to\n       furnish returns between the period from 01.06.2021 to 31.08.2021\n       in Form GSTR-3B for the months/quarter of July, 2017 to April,\n       2021.2.9.   Under such premise, the counsel for the petitioner praying for\n       setting aside the Appellate Order (Annexure-1), would submit that\n       given a chance, besides payment of tax, interest and penalty with\n       late fee, all required returns can be furnished. Upon such\n       compliance, the petitioner can be directed to make application\n       underSection 30for revocation of cancellation of registration.W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                        Page 6 of 70:: 7 ::3.     It is stated at the Bar that many cases of this nature has been\n       rejected by the Appellate Authority by passing a common order,\n       as a consequence of which taxpayers even though are ready to\n       deposit tax, interest and penalty with late fee and also furnish\n       return(s), they are deprived of availing such advantage as is\n       bestowed in the aforementioned notifications. Since the Bar\n       sought to address the issue, this Court asked Sri Rudra Prasad Kar,\n       Advocate to render assistance in this regard.3.1.   Mr. Rudra Prasad Kar, learned Advocate has placed the following\n       suggestions by way of short note dated 25.08.2022:"GST law being, a New Act, assessees are facing the difficulties in\n       switching to procedural compliance electronically through\n       internet on the GST Web-Portal. Considering the hardship faced\n       by the assessees and more specifically due to COVID-19\n       pandemic, various amnesty schemes were introduced by the\n       Government of India to ease the technical and procedural\n       complicacies faced by the assessees. The provisions of the GST\n       enactments and the rules made thereunder, read with various\n       clarifications issued by the Central Government, pursuant to the\n       decision of the GST Council and the Notification issued\n       thereunder, also makes it clear that the intention is only to\n       facilitate business and not to debar the assessees from coming\n       back into GST fold. The purpose of GST registration is only to\n       ensure that just taxes get collected on supplies of goods or\n       services or both and is paid to the exchequer. Keeping these\n       petitioners outside the bounds of the GST regime is a self-\n       defeating move. It will be in the interest of the State to allow\n       restoration of the Registration Certificate and facilitate business\n       to grow.The provisions of the GST enactments cannot be interpreted so as\n       to deny the right to carry on Trade and Commerce to a citizen.\n       The constitutional guarantee is unconditional and unequivocal\n       and must be enforced regardless of the defect in the scheme of the\n       GST enactments. The right to carry on trade or profession also\n       cannot be curtailed. Only reasonable restrictions, can be imposed.W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                       Page 7 of 70:: 8 ::To deny such rights would militate against the rights underArticle\n       14, read withArticle 19(1)(g)andArticle 21of the Constitution of\n       India.Recognizing the difficulties, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes\n       and Customs (CBIC) extended the time limit for filing application\n       for revocation of cancellation of registration for all the orders\n       passed on or before 12.06.2020 was granted time till 31.08.2020\n       from which date the period of limitation for revocation of\n       registration certificate would be counted. As the application filed\n       by the writ-applicants for revocation of cancellation of\n       registration was looked into by a quasi judicial authority, the\n       order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court extending the period of\n       limitation in view of the COVID-19 pandemic would apply and in\n       such circumstances, the limitation in accordance with the order\n       passed by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs would\n       also stand extended.In view of the above and the various amnesty scheme notified by\n       the Department, the Court may consider passing an order in\n       consonance with the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of\n       India & Another Vrs. FILCO Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. & Another,\n       SLP(C) No.31709-32710/2018, dated 22.07.2022.The following are the humble suggestions:1.     The Hon'ble Court may consider allowing 'three' months\n              time to assessees/the registered persons, whose registration\n              have been cancelled under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the GST Act to apply for\n              revocation of cancellation of registration from the date of\n              passing of the order.2.     Accordingly, the GST Authorities/Concerned Officers may\n              be directed to consider the application of revocation and\n              allow the assessees to comply with the statutory\n              requirements namely filing of returns, deposit of tax,\n              interest, penalty and late fee within a further period of one\n              month.3.     Authorities to take a pragmatic view and restore the R.Cs.It is submitted that the Government will not be put to any\n       pecuniary loss/revenue loss, rather the above suggestions andW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                        Page 8 of 70:: 9 ::directions of this Hon'ble Court will be in the larger interest of\n       trade, commerce and economic growth of the nation."4.     Mr. Rudra Prasad Kar, learned Advocate, brought attention of this\n       Court to the Judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court rendered in\n       the case of Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center Vrs. The Appellate\n       Authority and Another, W.P.(C) No.25048 of 2021, etc. etc., vide\n       Order dated 31.01.2022 reported at 2022 (61) GSTL 515 (Mad) to\n       demonstrate that in the said Judgment a batch of matters qua\n       certain taxpayers, having failed to furnish returns, registration\n       certificates had been cancelled in the years 2018 and 2019 in\n       terms ofSection 29(2)(c), and their appeals have also been\n       rejected by the Appellate Authority on the ground of limitation;\n       nonetheless, the said Court protected them by issue of writ of\n       mandamus with certain conditions. He also referred to decisions\n       of other High Courts where similar views have been expressed\n       and the statute under consideration being a Central statute, the\n       views so expressed can be taken cognizance of for the purpose of\n       extending akin privilege to the similarly circumstanced taxpayers\n       of this State. In furtherance thereof, he urged that many taxpayers\n       of this State being in unison to deposit tax, interest and penalty\n       with late fee as is required under theCGST Actand rules framed\n       thereunder, and non-grant of such opportunity cannot be said to\n       enure to the larger interest of the State exchequer and disposing of\n       writ petition with a direction to the Registering Authority to\n       restore the registration by setting aside the Appellate Order would\n       not only meet interest of justice, but also it would not cause\n       prejudice to the Revenue. Therefore, he requested for extending\n       one-time benefit.W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                       Page 9 of 70:: 10 ::5.     Copy of suggestions with short note was served on Mr. Subash\n       Chandra Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite\n       parties, who on instruction, submitted that in the event the\n       petitioner deposits the required tax, interest, penalty and late fee,\n       and furnishes all the returns, subject to verification by the\n       authority concerned, the revocation of registration, upon duly\n       constituted application underSection 30of the CGST Act, could\n       be considered by the Registering Authority.6.The CGST Act, 2017was promulgated and brought into force\n       with effect from 01.07.2017, which is an Act to make provision\n       for levy and collection of tax on intra-State supply of goods or\n       services or both by the Central Government and the matters\n       connected therewith or incidental thereto. Likewise, the Odisha\n       Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for brevity, "OGST Act") was\n       enacted to make provision for levy and collection of tax on intra-\n       State supply of goods or services or both by the State of Odisha\n       and the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Thus,\n       the resultant effect upon introduction of the CGST Act and the\n       OGST Act is that certain other statutes includingOdisha Value\n       Added Tax Act, 2004and the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 which\n       were imposing indirect taxes stood repealed and in their place\n       indirect taxes are levied under the CGST Act and the OGST Act.\n       The levy of tax on goods and services is being made by the\n       Central Government under the provisions of theCGST Act, 2017and concurrent power has been conferred on the State Government\n       to levy goods and services tax under the provisions under the\n       OGST Act. Relevant provisions involved for facilitatingW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                       Page 10 of 70:: 11 ::adjudication of the issue raised in the present case do require to be\n       mentioned.Section 29"Cancellation or suspension of registration.--(1)    ***\n       (2)    The proper officer may cancel the registration of a personfrom such date, including any retrospective date, as he may\n              deem fit, where,--(a)     a registered person has contravened such provisions\n                      of the Act or the rules made thereunder as may be\n                      prescribed; or(b)     a person paying tax under Section 10 has not\n                      furnished returns for three consecutive tax periods;\n                      or(c)     any registered person, other than a person specified\n                      in Clause (b), has not furnished returns for a\n                      continuous period of six months; or(d)     any person who has taken voluntary registration\n                      under sub-section (3) of Section 25 has not\n                      commenced business within six months from the date\n                      of registration; or(e)     registration has been obtained by means of fraud,\n                      wilful misstatement or suppression of facts:Provided that the proper officer shall not cancel the\n              registration without giving the person an opportunity of\n              being heard.Provided further that during pendency of the proceedings\n              relating to cancellation of such period and in such manner\n              as may be prescribed."Section 30"Revocation of cancellation of registration.--W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                       Page 11 of 70:: 12 ::(1)    Subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, any\n              registered person, whose registration is cancelled by the\n              proper officer on his own motion, may apply to such officer\n              for revocation of cancellation of the registration in the\n              prescribed manner within thirty days from the date of\n              service of the cancellation order.Provided that such period may, on sufficient cause being\n              shown, and for reasons to be recorded in writing, be\n              extended,--(a)     by the Additional Commissioner or the Joint\n                      Commissioner, as the case may be, for a period not\n                      exceeding thirty days;(b)     by the Commissioner, for a further period not\n                      exceeding thirty days, beyond the period specified in\n                      clause (a).(2)    The proper officer may, in such manner and within such\n              period as may be prescribed, by order, either revoke\n              cancellation of the registration or reject the application:Provided that the application for revocation of cancellation\n              of registration shall not be rejected unless the applicant has\n              been given an opportunity of being heard.(3)    The revocation of cancellation of registration under theCentral Goods and Services Tax Actshall be deemed to be\n              a revocation of cancellation of registration under this Act."Rule 22\n       "Cancellation of registration.--(1)    Where the proper officer has reasons to believe that the\n              registration of a person is liable to be cancelled underSection 29, he shall issue a notice to such person in Form\n              GST REG-17, requiring him to show cause, within a period\n              of seven working days from the date of the service of such\n              notice, as to why his registration shall not be cancelled.W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                       Page 12 of 70:: 13 ::(2)    The reply to the show cause notice issued under sub-rule (1)\n              shall be furnished in Form REG-18 within the period\n              specified in the said sub-rule.(3)    Where a person who has submitted an application for\n              cancellation of his registration is no longer liable to be\n              registered or his registration is liable to be cancelled, the\n              proper officer shall issue an order in Form GST REG-19,\n              within a period of thirty days from the date of application\n              submitted under Rule 20 or, as the case may be, the date of\n              the reply to the show cause issued under sub-rule (1),\n              cancel the registration, with effect from a date to be\n              determined by him and notify the taxable person, directing\n              him to pay arrears of any tax, interest or penalty including\n              the amount liable to be paid under sub-section (5) ofSection 29.(4)    Where the reply furnished under sub-rule (2) is found to be\n              satisfactory, the proper officer shall drop the proceedings\n              and pass an order in Form GST REG-20:Provided that where the person instead of replying to the\n              notice served under sub-rule (1) for contravention of the\n              provisions contained in clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-\n              section (2) of Section 29, furnishes all the pending returns\n              and makes full payment of the tax dues along with\n              applicable interest and late fee, the proper officer shall\n              drop the proceedings and pass an order in Form GST-REG20.(5)    The provisions of sub-rule (3) shall, mutatis mutandis,\n              apply to the legal heirs of a deceased proprietor, as if the\n              application had been submitted by the proprietor himself."Rule 23\n       "Revocation of cancellation of registration.--(1)    A registered person, whose registration is cancelled by the\n              proper officer on his own motion, may submit an\n              application for revocation of cancellation of registration, in\n              Form GST REG-21, to such proper officer, within a period\n              of thirty days from the date of the service of the order of\n              cancellation of registration at the common portal, eitherW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                       Page 13 of 70:: 14 ::directly or through a Facilitation Centre notified by the\n              Commissioner:Provided that no application for revocation shall be filed, if\n              the registration has been cancelled for the failure of the\n              registered person to furnish returns, unless such returns are\n              furnished and any amount due as tax, in terms of such\n              returns, has been paid along with any amount payable\n              towards interest, penalty and late fee in respect of the said\n              returns.Provided further that all returns due for the period from the\n              date of the order of cancellation of registration till the date\n              of the order of revocation of cancellation of registration\n              shall be furnished by the said person within a period of\n              thirty days from the date of order of revocation of\n              cancellation of registration:Provided also that where the registration has been\n              cancelled with retrospective effect, the registered person\n              shall furnish all returns relating to period from the effective\n              date of cancellation of registration till the date of order of\n              revocation of cancellation of registration within a period of\n              thirty days from the date of order of revocation of\n              cancellation of registration.]\n       (2)    (a)     Where the proper officer is satisfied, for reasons to\n                      be recorded in writing, that there are sufficient\n                      grounds for revocation of cancellation of\n                      registration, he shall revoke the cancellation of\n                      registration by an order in Form GST REG-22 within\n                      a period of thirty days from the date of the receipt of\n                      the application and communicate the same to the\n                      applicant.(b)     The proper officer may, for reasons to be recorded in\n                      writing, under circumstances other than those\n                      specified in clause (a), by an order in Form GST\n                      REG-05, reject the application for revocation of\n                      cancellation of registration and communicate the\n                      same to the applicant.W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                        Page 14 of 70:: 15 ::(3)    The proper officer shall, before passing the order referred\n              to in clause (b) of sub-rule (2), issue a notice in Form GST\n              REG-23 requiring the applicant to show cause as to why the\n              application submitted for revocation under sub-rule (1)\n              should not be rejected and the applicant shall furnish the\n              reply within a period of seven working days from the date of\n              the service of the notice in Form GST REG-24.\n       (4)    Upon receipt of the information or clarification in Form\n              GST REG-24, the proper officer shall proceed to dispose of\n              the application in the manner specified in sub-rule (2)\n              within a period of thirty days from the date of the receipt of\n              such information or clarification from the applicant."7.     The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Aggarwal Dyeing\n       and Printing Works Vrs. State of Gujarat & 2 Other(s), R/Special\n       Civil Application No. 18860 of 2021, vide Judgment dated\n       24.02.2022 discussed the provisions enshrined for registration\n       with reference to the rules framed thereunder in the following\n       manner:"8.1 Scheme of the Act:*** The related provisions for certificate of registration\n              and its cancellation, under the said Act are as under:i.Section 2(107)defines the term "taxable person"means a person who is registered or liable to be\n                      registered underSection 22orSection 24.ii.     Chapter VI pertains to Registration.Section 22provides for person liable for registration.Section 23pertains to person who shall not be liable for\n                      registration whereasSection 24provides for\n                      compulsory registration in certain cases specified\n                      therein.Section 25provides application to be made\n                      within period of thirty days and prescribes procedure\n                      to be followed for registration.Section 26provides\n                      deemed registration.W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                        Page 15 of 70:: 16 ::iii.    The Gujarat Goods and service Rules, 2017 has come\n                      into effect from 22nd June, 2017. Chapter III deals\n                      with subject "Registration". Rule 8 provides for\n                      Application for registration. Rule 10 provides for\n                      Issue of registration certificate. Rule 16 provides for\n                      suo motu registration.iv.Section 29confers power upon the proper officer for\n                      cancellation of Registration.Section 30provides for\n                      revocation of cancellation of registration. Against the\n                      aforesaid substantive provisions prescribed under the\n                      Act, the corresponding rules framed thereunder are\n                      also required to be looked into.v.      Rule 20 provides for filing of application for\n                      cancellation of registration by the dealer. Rule 21\n                      provides for Registration to be cancelled by the\n                      proper officer in certain cases. Rule 22 deals for\n                      procedure to be adhered to while proceeding for with\n                      cancellation of registration. Rule 23 deals with\n                      Revocation of cancellation of registration.9.     In light of the aforesaid provisions, we notice that\n              registration of any business entity under the GST Law\n              implies obtaining a unique number from the concerned tax\n              authorities for the purpose of collecting tax on behalf of the\n              Government and to avail input tax credit for the taxes on\n              his inward supplies. Without registration, a person can\n              neither collect tax from his customers nor claim any input\n              tax credit of tax paid by him. It appears that registration in\n              GST is PAN based and State specific. Thus, supplier has to\n              get himself registered in each of such State or Union\n              Territory from where he effects supply.The Actempowers\n              proper officer and registration granted under GST can be\n              cancelled for specified reasons. The cancellation can either\n              be initiated by the department on their own motion or the\n              registered person can apply for cancellation of his\n              registration.9.1    From the bare reading of the Rules, 2017 along with\n              statutory provision, the reasons for cancellation can be\n              culled out as under:W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                        Page 16 of 70:: 17 ::a)      a person registered under any of the existing laws,\n                      but who is not liable to be registered under the GST\n                      Act;b)      the business has been discontinued, transferred fully\n                      for any reason including death of the proprietor,\n                      amalgamated with other legal entity, demerged or\n                      otherwise disposed of;c)      there is any change in the constitution of the\n                      business;d)      the taxable person (other than the person who has\n                      voluntarily taken registration under sub-section (3)\n                      ofSection 25of the CGST Act, 2017) is no longer\n                      liable to be registered;e)      a registered person has contravened such provisions\n                      of the Act or the rules made thereunder;f)      a person paying tax under composition levy has not\n                      furnished returns for three consecutive tax periods;g)      any registered person, other than a person paying tax\n                      under composition levy has not furnished returns for\n                      a continuous period of six months;h)      any person who has taken voluntary registration\n                      under sub-section (3) ofSection 25has not\n                      commenced business within six months from the date\n                      of registration;i)      registration has been obtained by means of fraud,\n                      willful misstatement or suppression of facts.9.2    The procedure for cancellation of registration can be\n              summarized as under:i.      A person already registered under any of the existing\n                      laws (Central excise, Service tax, VAT etc.), but who\n                      now is not liable to be registered under the GST Act\n                      has to submit an application electronically by 31st\n                      December 2017, in Form GST REG-29 at the\n                      common portal for the cancellation of registrationW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                       Page 17 of 70:: 18 ::granted to him. The Superintendent of Central Tax\n                      shall, after conducting such enquiry as deemed fit,\n                      cancel the said registration.ii.     The cancellation of registration under the State\n                      Goods and Services Tax Act or theUnion Territory\n                      Goods and Services Tax Act, as the case may be,\n                      shall be deemed to be a cancellation of registration\n                      underCentral Goods and Services Tax Act.iii.    In the event, the Superintendent of Central Tax has\n                      reasons to believe that the registration of a person is\n                      liable to be cancelled, a notice to such person in\n                      Form GST REG-17, requiring him to show cause,\n                      within a period of seven working days from the date\n                      of the service of such notice, as to why his\n                      registration shall not be cancelled; will be issued.\n              iv.     The reply to the show cause notice issued has to be\n                      furnished by the registered person in Form REG-18\n                      within a period of seven working days. iv. In case the\n                      reply to the show cause notice is found to be\n                      satisfactory, the Superintendent of Central Tax will\n                      drop the proceedings and pass an order in Form GST\n                      REG-20.v.      However, when the person who has submitted an\n                      application for cancellation of his registration is no\n                      longer liable to be registered or his registration is\n                      liable to be cancelled, the Superintendent of Central\n                      Tax will issue an order in Form GST REG-19, within\n                      a period of thirty days from the date of application\n                      or, as the case may be, the date of the reply to the\n                      show cause issued, cancel the registration, with effect\n                      from a date to be determined by him and notify the\n                      taxable person, directing him to pay arrears of any\n                      tax, interest or penalty.vi.     The registered person whose registration is cancelled\n                      shall pay an amount, by way of debit in the electronic\n                      credit ledger or electronic cash ledger, equivalent to\n                      the credit of input tax in respect of inputs held in\n                      stock and inputs contained in semi-finished orW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                        Page 18 of 70:: 19 ::finished goods held in stock or capital goods or plant\n                      and machinery on the day immediately preceding the\n                      date of such cancellation or the output tax payable on\n                      such goods, whichever is higher.vii.    In case of capital goods or plant and machinery, the\n                      taxable person shall pay an amount equal to the input\n                      tax credit taken on the said capital goods or plant\n                      and machinery, reduced by such percentage as may\n                      be prescribed or the tax on the transaction value of\n                      such capital goods or plant and machinery underSection 15, whichever is higher.viii.   The cancellation of registration shall not affect the\n                      liability of the person to pay tax and other dues for\n                      any period prior to the date of cancellation whether\n                      or not such tax and other dues are determined before\n                      or after the date of cancellation.9.3    At the same time, the statute also provides for revocation of\n              cancellation:i.      When the registration has been cancelled by the\n                      Proper Officer (Superintendent of Central Tax) on\n                      his own motion and not on the basis of an\n                      application, then the registered person, whose\n                      registration has been cancelled, can submit an\n                      application for revocation of cancellation of\n                      registration, in Form GST REG-21, to the Proper\n                      Officer (Assistant or Deputy Commissioners of\n                      Central Tax), within a period of thirty days from the\n                      date of the service of the order of cancellation of\n                      registration at the common portal, either directly or\n                      through a Facilitation Centre notified by the\n                      Commissioner:ii.     However, if the registration has been cancelled for\n                      failure to furnish returns, application for revocation\n                      shall be filed, only after such returns are furnished\n                      and any amount due as tax, in terms of such returns,\n                      has been paid along with any amount payable\n                      towards interest, penalty and late fee in respect of the\n                      said returns.W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                         Page 19 of 70:: 20 ::iii.    On examination of the application if the Proper\n                      Officer (Assistant or Deputy Commissioners of\n                      Central Tax) is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded\n                      in writing, that there are sufficient grounds for\n                      revocation of cancellation of registration, then he\n                      shall revoke the cancellation of registration by an\n                      order in Form GST REG-22 within a period of thirty\n                      days from the date of the receipt of the application\n                      and communicate the same to the applicant.\n              iv.     However, if on examination of the application for\n                      revocation, if the Proper Officer (Assistant or Deputy\n                      Commissioners of Central Tax) is not satisfied then\n                      he will issue a notice in Form GST REG-23\n                      requiring the applicant to show cause as to why the\n                      application submitted for revocation should not be\n                      rejected and the applicant has to furnish the reply\n                      within a period of seven working days from the date\n                      of the service of the notice in Form GST REG-24.v.      Upon receipt of the information or clarification in\n                      Form GST REG-24, the Proper Officer (Assistant or\n                      Deputy Commissioners of Central Tax) shall dispose\n                      of the application within a period of thirty days from\n                      the date of the receipt of such information or\n                      clarification from the applicant. In case the\n                      information or clarification provided is satisfactory,\n                      the Proper Officer (Assistant or Deputy\n                      Commissioners of Central Tax) shall dispose the\n                      application as per para (iii) above. In case it is not\n                      satisfactory the applicant will be mandatorily given\n                      an opportunity of being heard, after which the Proper\n                      Officer (Assistant or Deputy Commissioners of\n                      Central Tax) after recording the reasons in writing\n                      may by an order in Form GST REG-05, reject the\n                      application for revocation of cancellation of\n                      registration and communicate the same to the\n                      applicant.vi.     The revocation of cancellation of registration under\n                      the State Goods and Services Tax Act or theUnion\n                      Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, as the case\n                      may be, shall be deemed to be a revocation ofW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                        Page 20 of 70:: 21 ::cancellation of registration underCentral Goods and\n                      Services Tax Act.10.    Thus, upon appreciation of the scheme of Act, where\n              specific forms have been prescribed at each stage right\n              from registration, cancellation and revocation of\n              cancellation of registration, the same are to be strictly\n              adhered to. At the same time, it is equally important that the\n              proper officer empowered under the said Act adheres to the\n              principles of natural justice.11.    At the outset, we notice that it is settled legal position of law\n              that reasons are heart and soul of the order and non-\n              communication of same itself amounts to denial of\n              reasonable opportunity of hearing, resulting in miscarriage\n              of justice. ***"7.1.   A conjoint reading of the provisions referred to above juxtaposed\n       with provisions contained inSection 39read with Rule 61 would\n       clearly indicate that the petitioner is bound to file return for the\n       month concerned on or before the 20th of the succeeding month\n       concerned. Further a reading ofSection 29(2)(c)of the CGST Act\n       would also disclose that it is mandated by the Legislature that if\n       there is continuous default of six months on the part of the\n       assessee in filing returns, then the competent authority can invoke\n       the power conferred underSection 29(2)(c)of the said Act to\n       cancel the registration.7.2.   In the instant case, it is transpired from pleading in the writ\n       petition that though the Superintendent, Berhampur-I Range\n       passed order cancelling the registration with effect from\n       15.10.2019, the petitioner has been allowed to deposit an amount\n       of Rs.3,09,360/- with late fee of Rs.5,000/- in respect of the tax\n       liability for the period October, 2019 and the return in connectionW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                          Page 21 of 70:: 22 ::with cancelled GSTIN being 21ALPPP8146E2ZY was allowed to\n       be furnished on 22.04.2021.8.     It appears, being confused on account of newly introduced\n       taxation procedure, instead of taking recourse to the remedy\n       available underSection 30read with Rule 23 for revocation of\n       cancellation of registration, appeal underSection 107was\n       preferred by the petitioner.8.1.   In the order of cancellation of registration dated 15.10.2019\n       (Annexure-4) it has been reflected as follows:"This has reference to your reply dated 31.08.2019 in response to\n       the notice to show cause dated 21.08.2019."However, without assigning any reason for considering said\n       response, the proper officer, Superintendent, has cancelled the\n       registration.8.2.   The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected with the\n       following observation:"8.    I find that the said appellant Nos.1 to 32 did not file the\n              requisite returns as indicated in the respective show cause\n              notice issued to them. Therefore, their registrations were\n              cancelled. They also did not file application for revocation\n              of cancellation of registration within the prescribed time. It\n              is also noticed that the said appellants have not filed the\n              present appeals within the stipulated time limit prescribed\n              underSection 107(1)of CGST Act, 2017.9.     As per the provisions ofSection 107(1)of the CGST Act, a\n              person is required to file appeal against an order passed by\n              an adjudicating authority within the time limit of three\n              months from the date on which order is communicated. It is\n              noted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 8th\n              March, 2021 has extended the limitation period prescribedW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                       Page 22 of 70:: 23 ::under general law of limitation or under any special (both\n              Central and State) due to the onset of Covid-19 virus.\n              Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said order has directed that\n              in computing the period of limitation for any appeal, the\n              period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.0021 shall stand excluded.\n              Further, it has been held in the said order that in cases\n              where the limitation would have expired during the period\n              between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the\n              actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons\n              shall have limitation period of 90 days from 15.3.2021.10.1 It is also noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order\n            dated 27.04.2021 has restored its earlier order dated\n            08.03.20 21 in view of the extraordinary situation caused by\n            the second outburst of COVID-19 virus. Hon'ble Supreme\n            Court has ruled that in continuation of the order dated 8th\n            March, 2021 direct that the period(s) of limitation, as\n            described under any general or special laws in respect of\n            all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, whether\n            condonable or not shall stand extended till further orders.Hon'ble Supreme Court has further clarified that the period\n            from 14th March, 2021 till further orders shall also stand\n            excluded in computing the limitation period.\n       10.2 In pursuance of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,\n            Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has\n            issued a circular No. 157/13/2021-GST dated 20.07.2021.\n            In the said circular, it is clarified that period of limitation\n            extended by Supreme Court in its order dated 27.04.2021\n            shall be applicable in respect of any appeal before the\n            appellate authority under theCGST Act. The relevant\n            portion of the said Circular is reproduced as under:"5.     In other words, the extension of timelines granted by\n                      the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated\n                      27.04.2021 is applicable in respect of any appeal\n                      which is required to be filed before Joint/Additional\n                      Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner (appeals),\n                      appellate authority for advance rulings, tribunal and\n                      various courts against any quasi-judicial order or\n                      where proceeding for revision or rectification of any\n                      order is required to be undertaken, and is notW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                       Page 23 of 70:: 24 ::applicable to any other proceedings under GST\n                       laws."11.    Thus, taking into account the extension of limitation period\n              granted by the CBIC and Hon'ble Supreme Court, I find\n              that the appeals by the above Appellant Nos. 1 to 32 are\n              filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Therefore,\n              I am constrained to reject the said appeals filed by the\n              Appellant No. 1 to 32. Held accordingly."8.3.   It is apparent from the above that while rejecting appeals of 32\n       taxpayers on 07.10.2021 by a common order, the Appellate\n       Authority had no occasion to notice the further order being passed\n       on 10.01.2022 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking into\n       consideration third surge of COVID-19 virus. Said order dated\n       10.01.2022 having bearing on the case at hand, the appellate order\n       deserves to be set aside.8.4.   Significant it is to have reference to Notification No.76/2018--Central Tax [GSR 1253(E)], dated 31st December, 2018 issued in\n       exercise of power conferred underSection 128along with\n       pertinent amendments made thereof subsequently. For better\n       appreciation relevant portions of said notification are extracted\n       herein below to appreciate that the Government extended the\n       benefit to taxpayers to furnish the returns between the period from\n       1st day of July, 2020 to 30th of September, 2020 who failed to\n       furnish returns for the months of July, 2017 to January, 2020 by\n       the due date:"Government of India Ministry of Finance\n                            (Department of Revenue)\n                   Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs\n                     Notification No. 76/2018 - Central Tax\n                       New Delhi, the 31st December, 2018W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                      Page 24 of 70:: 25 ::G.S.R.1253(E),- In exercise of the powers conferred bySection\n       128of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017)\n       (hereafter in this notification referred to as the said Act), the\n       Central Government, on the recommendations of the Council , and\n       in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in\n       the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue No. 28/2017 -Central Tax, dated the 1st September, 2017 published in the\n       Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II,Section 3, sub-section (i)\n       vide number G.S.R. 1126 (E), dated the 1st September, 2017,\n       notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance,\n       Department of Revenue No. 50/2017- Central Tax, dated the 24th\n       October, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary,\n       Part II,Section 3, sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R. 1326 (E),\n       dated the 24th October, 2017 and notification of the Government\n       of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No.\n       64/2017- Central Tax, dated the 15th November, 2017, published\n       in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II,Section 3, sub-\n       section (i) vide number G.S.R.1420(E), dated the 15th November,\n       2017, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before\n       such supersession, hereby waives the amount of late fee payable\n       by any registered person for failure to furnish the return in Form\n       GSTR-3B for the month of July, 2017 onwards by the due date\n       underSection 47of the said Act, which is in excess of an amount\n       of twenty-five rupees for every day during which such failure\n       continues:Provided that where the total amount of central tax payable in the\n       said return is nil, the amount of late fee payable by such\n       registered person for failure to furnish the said return for the\n       month of July, 2017 onwards by the due date underSection 47of\n       the said Act shall stand waived to the extent which is in excess of\n       an amount of ten rupees for every day during which such failure\n       continues:Provided further that the amount of late fee payable underSection\n       47of the said Act shall stand waived for the registered persons\n       who failed to furnish the return in Form GSTR-3B for the months\n       of July, 2017 to September, 2018 by the due date but furnishes the\n       said return between the period from 22nd December, 2018 to 31st\n       March, 2019.***W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                      Page 25 of 70:: 26 ::1[Provided also that the total amount of late fee payable for a tax\n       period, underSection 47of the said Act shall stand waived which\n       is in excess of an amount of two hundred and fifty rupees for the\n       registered person who failed to furnish the return in Form GSTR-\n       3B for the months of July, 2017 to January, 2020, by the due date\n       but furnishes the said return between the period from 1st day of\n       July, 2020 to 30th day of September, 2020:Provided also that where the total amount of Central tax payable\n       in the said return is NIL, the total amount of late fee payable for a\n       tax period, underSection 47of the said Act shall stand waived for\n       the registered person who failed to furnish the return in Form\n       GSTR-3B for the months of July, 2017 to January, 2020, by the\n       due date but furnishes the said return between the period from 1st\n       day of July, 2020 to 30th day of September, 2020.]\n       ***2[Provided also that for the registered persons who failed to\n       furnish the return in Form GSTR-3B for the months/quarter of\n       July, 2017 to April, 2021, by the due date but furnish the said\n       return between the period from the 1st day of June, 2021 to the 31st\n       day of August, 2021, the total amount of late fee underSection 47of the said Act, shall stand waived which is in excess of five\n       hundred rupees:Provided also that where the total amount of central tax payable\n       in the said return is nil, the total amount of late fee underSection\n       47of the said Act shall stand waived which is in excess of two\n       hundred and fifty rupees for the registered persons who failed to\n       furnish the return in Form GSTR-3B for the months/quarter of\n       July, 2017 to April, 2021, by the due date but furnish the said\n       return between the period from the 1st day of June, 2021 to the\n       31st day of August, 2021:Provided also that the total amount of late fee payable underSection 47of the said Act for the tax period June, 2021 onwards\n       or quarter ending June, 2021 onwards, as the case may be, shall\n       stand waived which is in excess of an amount as specified in\n       column (3) of the Table given below, for the class of registered\n       persons mentioned in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the\n       said Table, who fail to furnish the returns in Form GSTR-3B by\n       the due date, namely: --W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                       Page 26 of 70:: 27 ::S.                             Class of                                       Amount\n       No.                        registered persons                                    (3)\n       (1)                                (2)1.     Registered persons whose total amount of central tax Two\n              payable in the said return is nil                    hundred and\n                                                                   fifty rupees2.     Registered persons having an aggregate turnover of up One\n              to rupees 1.5 crores in the preceding financial year, thousand\n              other than those covered under S. No. 1               rupees3.     Taxpayers having an aggregate turnover of more than                   Two\n              rupees 1.5 crores and up to rupees 5 crores in the                    thousand\n              preceding financial year, other than those covered                    and      five\n              under S. No. 1                                                        hundred\n                                                                                    rupees]\n\n                                                           [F.No.20/06/16/2018-GST]\n                                                            (Dr. Sreeparvathy S.L.)\n                                                                Under Secretary\n                                                           to the Government of India"1.     Inserted by Notification No.52/2020-- Central Tax, dated 24.06.2020.2.     Inserted by Notification No.19/2021-- Central Tax, dated 01.06.2021.8.5.   Minute reading of above mentioned notification gives indication\n       that the Government have been considerate in extending the\n       benefit to the taxpayers who could not file returns for the\n       months/quarter(s) of July, 2017 to April, 2021 within statutory\n       period specified. As the registration certificate of the petitioner\n       stood cancelled since 15.10.2019 by the time amendments to\n       Notification No.76/2018-- Central Tax [GSR 1253(E)], dated 31st\n       December, 2018 came into force, there was no scope left for\n       availing the advantage conferred thereunder.8.6.   Perusal of Common Order dated 31.01.2022 passed in the case of\n       Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center Vrs. The Appellate Authority and\n       Another, 2022 (61) GSTL 515 (Mad) reveals that the Hon'bleW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                                            Page 27 of 70:: 28 ::Madras High Court considered inter alia the cases of taxpayers\n       who have filed writ petition "AGAINST            THE ORDER PASSED IN\n\n       APPEAL     FILED    AGAINST   THE        ORDER   OF   CANCELLATION    OF\n\n       REGISTRATION OF      GST CERTIFICATE       ON ACCOUNT OF THE APPEAL\n\n       BEING TIME BARRED".     Relevant it is to quote the following from\n       said common order:"171. One of the options available noticee whose registration is\n             cancelled, is to approach the same authority for revocation\n             of cancellation of the registration in the manner prescribed\n             within 30 days from the date of service of cancellation of\n             registration.172. WhenSection 30was incorporated in the respective GST\n            enactments with effect from 1st July, 2017, there was no\n            proviso toSection 30(1)of the Act. ***173. Only, a single window of opportunity was given to file\n            application within thirty (30) days for revocation of\n            cancellation order underSection 30(1). However, right\n            from the beginning, GST Council recognised that the GST\n            law was new and assessees encountered the difficulties in\n            switching to procedural compliance electronically through\n            Internet on the GST Web-Portal.174. Considering the hardship faced by the assessees, the GST\n            Council in its 33rd Meeting held on 24.02.2019 took a\n            decision. Pursuant to aforesaid decision, the Central\n            Government, on recommendations of the GST Council, in\n            exercise of power conferred underSection 172of the\n            Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, inserted a\n            proviso toSection 30(1)of the respective GST enactments\n            vide Order No.5/2019-GST, Central Board of Indirect\n            Taxes and Customs, dated 23.04.2019. Thus, Proviso\n            toSection 30(1)of the Act read as under:"Provided that the registered person who was served notice\n              under sub-section (2) ofSection 29in the manner as\n              provided in clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) ofSection 169and who could not reply to the said notice,W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                           Page 28 of 70:: 29 ::thereby resulting in cancellation of his registration\n              certificate and is hence unable to file application for\n              revocation of cancellation of registration under sub-section\n              (1) ofSection 30of the Act, against such order passed up to\n              31.03.2019, shall be allowed to file application for\n              revocation of cancellation of the registration not later than\n              22.07.2019."175. This was a novel and an unconventional method adopted to\n            amend the Act. It was contrary to the well-established\n            procedure under the Constitution and Law for amending a\n            statute. The above amendment was a stop gap arrangement.\n            As per the aforesaid proviso which was inserted toSection\n            30(1)of the Act, wherever cancellation orders had been\n            passed up to 31.03.2019 and application for revocation was\n            not filed within thirty (30) days under sub-section (1) toSection 30, an option was given to file an application for\n            revocation of cancellation of the registration not later than\n            22.07.2019.176. Implementing requirement ofSection 30of the GST\n            enactments, Rule 23 of the GST Rules, 2017 has been\n            prescribed.***177. An alternate remedy is also available in the order of\n            cancellation by way of appeal underSection 107of the\n            respective GST enactments which option has been exercised\n            by some of the writ petitioners but beyond the period of\n            limitation.178. A reading ofSection 29of the Act respective GST\n            enactments also makes it clear that cancellation of\n            registration under the aforesaid section does not affect the\n            liability of a person to pay tax and other dues under the Act\n            or discharge any obligation under the said Act and the rules\n            made under for any period prior to the date of cancellation,\n            whether or not such tax and other dues are determined\n            before or after the date of cancellation. They also make it\n            clear that cancellation of registration under anyone of the\n            other GST enactments shall be deemed to be cancellation of\n            registration under the other GST enactments.W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                      Page 29 of 70:: 30 ::***184. Nationwide, lockdown was imposed on 24.03.2020 due to\n            the outbreak of SARS Covid-19 Pandemic. Under these\n            circumstances, Government, rose to the occasion based on\n            the recommendation of the GST Council and gave a fresh\n            opportunity to those persons whose right to file an\n            application underSection 30(1)of the Act and the remedy\n            under proviso to theSection 30(1)of the Act had expired\n            between 20.03.2020 to 29.06.2020 by extending the period\n            upto 30.06.2020 vide Notification No.35/2020- Central\n            Tax, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, dated\n            03.04.2020.185. This Notification was issued in the exercise of power\n            conferred underSection 168Aof the Central Goods and\n            Services Tax Act, 2017 read withSection 20of the\n            Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 andSection\n            21of the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act,\n            2017. This did not address the case of the above petitioners.186. However, on 25.06.2020, the Central Government on the\n            recommendations of the Council, in the exercise of power\n            conferred underSection 172of the Central Goods and\n            Services Tax Act, 2017, issued the Central Goods and\n            Services Tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2020 vide\n            Order No.01/2020-Central Tax, Central Board of Indirect\n            Taxes and Customs, dated 25.06.2020. Relevant portion of\n            the said Notification reads as under:1.      Short title.--This Order may be called THE CENTRAL GOODS AND\n                      SERVICES TAX (REMOVAL OF DIFFICULTIES) ORDER,\n                      2020.2.      For the removal of difficulties, it is hereby clarified\n                      that for the purpose of calculating the period of thirty\n                      days for filing application for revocation of\n                      cancellation of registration under sub-section (1) ofSection 30of the Act for those registered persons\n                      who were served notice under clause (b) or clause (c)\n                      of sub-section (2) ofSection 29in the manner asW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                         Page 30 of 70:: 31 ::provided in clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1)\n                      ofSection 169and where cancellation order was\n                      passed up to 12th June, 2020, the later of the\n                      following dates shall be considered:a)    Date of service of the said cancellation order;or\n                      b)    31st day of August, 2020.187. The amnesty in the above Government Order pertains to\n            cases where orders were passed up to 12.06.2020. ***188. The time for filing appropriate application for revoking the\n            cancellation of registration was extended either from date\n            of service of the said cancellation order or 31.08.2020\n            which was later.189. Thus, all these petitioners whose registration had been\n            cancelled prior to 12.06.2020 were given a fresh\n            opportunity to file an application for revocation of\n            cancellation of registration in terms of the Central Goods\n            and Services Tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2020 vide\n            Order No.01/2020-Central Tax, Central Board of Indirect\n            Taxes and Customs, dated 25.06.2020. However, none of\n            the petitioners opted to exercise the privilege.***191. Later, proviso was substituted bySection 122of the\n            Finance Act, 2020 which came into force from 01.01.2021\n            which reads as under:"Provided that such period may, on sufficient cause being\n              shown, and for reasons to be recorded in writing, be\n              extended,--(a)     by the Additional Commissioner or the Joint\n                      Commissioner, as the case may be, for a period not\n                      exceeding thirty days;(b)     by the Commissioner, for a further period not\n                      exceeding thirty days, beyond the period specified in\n                      clause (a).".W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                        Page 31 of 70:: 32 ::192. By Notification No.92/2020-- Central Tax, dated\n            22.12.2020, the Central Government appointed the 1st day\n            of January, 2021 as the date on which the provisions ofSection 119,120,121,122,123,124,126,127and131of\n            the Act shall come into force. Thus, Section 30 of the GST\n            Acts, came into force with effect from 1st day of January,\n            2021. The said Notification reads as under:"Government of India\n                           Ministry of Finance\n                        (Department of Revenue)\n               Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs\n                 Notification No 92/2020-- Central Tax\n                  New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2020\n\n              S.O. 4643(E).-- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-\n              section (2) ofSection 1of the Finance Act, 2020 (12 of\n              2020) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central\n              Government hereby appoints the 1st day of January, 2021,\n              as the date on which the provisions ofSections 119,120,121,122,123,124,126,127and131of the said Act shall\n              come into force.[F.No. CBEC-20/06/04/2020-GST]193. Parallel amendments were made to Rule 23 of the\n            respective GST Rules and Form GST REG-21 was amended\n            vide Notification No.15/2021-- Central Tax, Central Board\n            of Indirect Taxes and Customs, dated 18.05.2021. ***194. The above amendment however did not address the case of\n            the petitioners whose registrations were cancelled after\n            31.03.2019 and before the above amendment to the Act as\n            Rules with effect from 01.01.2021.***196. These petitioners had only one option to file an application\n            within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the\n            order of cancellation of registration underSection 30(1)of\n            the Act which had expired long back.197. Still later, in view of the prevailing situation, Notification\n            No.34/2021- Central Tax, Central Board of Indirect TaxesW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                      Page 32 of 70:: 33 ::and Customs, dated 29.08.2021 was issued by the Central\n              Government once again on the recommendation of the GST\n              Council. Notification No.34/2021- Central Tax, Central\n              Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, dated 29.08.2021\n              which reads as under:Government of India Ministry of Finance\n                            (Department of Revenue)\n                   Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs\n                     Notification No. 34/2021-- Central Tax\n                        New Delhi, the 29th August, 2021\n\n              G.S.R.600(E).- In partial modification of the notifications\n              of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance\n              (Department of Revenue), No. 35/2020-Central Tax, dated\n              the 3rd April, 2020, published in the Gazette of India,\n              Extraordinary, Part II,Section 3, sub-section (i), vide\n              number G.S.R. 235(E), dated the 3 rd April, 2020 and No.\n              14/2021-- Central Tax, dated the 1st May, 2021, published\n              in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II,Section 3,\n              sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R. 310(E), dated the 1st\n              May, 2021, in exercise of the powers conferred bySection\n              168Aof the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12\n              of 2017) (hereafter in this notification referred to as the\n              said Act), read withSection 20of the Integrated Goods and\n              Services Tax Act, 2017 (13 of 2017), andSection 21of the\n              Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (14 of\n              2017), the Government, on the recommendations of the\n              Council, hereby notifies that where a registration has been\n              cancelled under clause (b) or (c) of sub-section (2) ofSection 29of the said Act and the time limit for making an\n              application of revocation of cancellation of registration\n              under sub-section (1) ofSection 30of the said Act falls\n              during the period from the 1st day of March, 2020 to 31st\n              day of August, 2021 the time limit for making such\n              application shall be extended upto the 30th day of\n              September, 2021.[F. No. CBIC-20006/24/2021-GST]198. The Central Government in the above Notification took a\n            decision to extend the time limit up to 30.09.2021 for the\n            persons like petitioners. However, this was applicable toW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                     Page 33 of 70:: 34 ::those registrations which had been cancelled and time limit\n              for filing application for revocation of cancellation of\n              registration had expired during the period commencing\n              from the 1st day of March, 2020 to 31st day of August,\n              2021. Thus, the time limit for making such application stood\n              extended up to the 30th day of September, 2021.199. In the light of the above Notification, the Principal\n            Commissioner has also issued clarification vide Circular\n            No.158/14/2021--GST, Central Board of Indirect Taxes\n            and Customs, dated 06.09.2021, while, tracing out the\n            history, in paragraph Nos.3 and 4, it has been clarified as\n            follows:"3.     Applications covered under the scope of the said\n                      notification\n              3.1.    The said notification specifies that where the due\n                      date of filing of application for revocation of\n                      cancellation of registration falls between 1st March,\n                      2020 to 31st August, 2021, the time limit for filing of\n                      application for revocation of cancellation of\n                      registration is extended to 30th September, 2021.\n                      Accordingly, it is clarified that the benefit of said\n                      notification is extended to all the cases where\n                      cancellation of registration has been done under\n                      clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) ofSection\n                      29of the CGST Ac, 2017 and where the due date of\n                      filing of application for revocation of cancellation of\n                      registration falls between 1st March, 2020 to 31st\n                      August, 2021. It is further clarified that the benefit of\n                      notification would be applicable in those cases also\n                      where the application for revocation of cancellation\n                      of registration is either pending with the proper\n                      officer or has already been rejected by the proper\n                      officer. It is further clarified that the benefit of\n                      notification would also be available in those cases\n                      which are pending with the appellate authority or\n                      which have been rejected by the appellate authority.\n                      In other words, the date for filing application for\n                      revocation of cancellation of registration in all cases,\n                      where registration has been cancelled under clause(b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) ofSection 29ofW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                          Page 34 of 70:: 35 ::CGST Act, 2017and where the due date of filing of\n                      application for revocation of cancellation of\n                      registration falls between 1st March, 2020 to 31st\n                      August, 2021, is extended to 30th September, 2021,\n                      irrespective of the status of such applications. As\n                      explained in this para, the said notification would be\n                      applicable in the following manner:(i)     application for revocation of cancellation of\n                              registration has not been filed by the\n                              taxpayer--In such cases, the applications for revocation\n                              can be filed up to the extended timelines as\n                              provided vide the said notification. Such cases\n                              also cover those instances where an appeal\n                              was filed against order of cancellation of\n                              registration and the appeal had been rejected.(ii)    application for revocation of cancellation of\n                              registration has already been filed and which\n                              are pending with the proper officer--In such cases, the officer shall process the\n                              application for revocation considering the\n                              extended timelines as provided vide the said\n                              notification.(iii)   application for revocation of cancellation of\n                              registration was filed, but was rejected by the\n                              proper officer and taxpayer has not filed any\n                              appeal against the rejection--In such cases, taxpayer may file a fresh\n                              application for revocation and the officer shall\n                              process the application for revocation\n                              considering the extended timelines as provided\n                              vide the said notification.(iv)    application for revocation of cancellation of\n                              registration was filed, the proper officer\n                              rejected the application and appeal against the\n                              rejection order is pending before appellate\n                              authority--W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                         Page 35 of 70:: 36 ::In such cases, appellate authorities shall take\n                            the cognizance of the said notification for\n                            extension of timelines while deciding the\n                            appeal.(v)   application for revocation of cancellation of\n                            registration was filed, the proper officer\n                            rejected the application and the appeal has\n                            been decided against the taxpayer--In such cases, taxpayer may file a fresh\n                            application for revocation and the officer shall\n                            process the application for revocation\n                            considering the extended timelines as provided\n                            vide the said notification.4.      It may be recalled that, with effect from 01.01.2021,\n                      proviso to sub-section (1) ofSection 30of the CGST\n                      Act has been inserted which provides for extension of\n                      time for filing application for revocation of\n                      cancellation of registration by 30 days by Additional/\n                      Joint Commissioner and by another 30 days by the\n                      Commissioner. Doubts have been raised whether the\n                      said notification has extended the due date in respect\n                      of initial period of 30 days for filing the application\n                      (in cases where registration has been cancelled\n                      under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) ofSection 29of CGST Act, 2017) under sub-section (1)\n                      ofSection 30of the CGST Act or whether the due\n                      date of filing applications for revocation of\n                      registration can be extended further for the period of\n                      60 days (30 + 30) by the Joint Commissioner/\n                      Additional Commissioner/ Commissioner, as the case\n                      may be, beyond the extended date of 30.09.2021. It is\n                      clarified that:(i)   where the thirty days' time limit falls between\n                            1st March, 2020 to 31st December, 2020, there\n                            is no provision available to extend the said\n                            time period of 30 days underSection 30of the\n                            CGST Act. For such cases, pursuant to the said\n                            notification, the time limit to apply for\n                            revocation of cancellation of registrationW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                        Page 36 of 70:: 37 ::stands extended up to 30th September, 2021\n                             only; and(ii)   where the time period of thirty days since\n                             cancellation of registration has not lapsed as\n                             on 1st January, 2021 or where the registration\n                             has been cancelled on or after 1st January,\n                             2021, the time limit for applying for revocation\n                             of cancellation of registration shall stand\n                             extended as follows:(a)   Where the time period of 90 days (initial\n                                   30 days and extension of 30 + 30 days)\n                                   since cancellation of registration has\n                                   elapsed by 31.08.2021, the time limit to\n                                   apply for revocation of cancellation of\n                                   registration stands extended upto 30th\n                                   September 2021, without any further\n                                   extension     of    time    by     Joint\n                                   Commissioner/                Additional\n                                   Commissioner/ Commissioner.(b)   Where the time period of 60 days (and\n                                   not 90 days) since cancellation of\n                                   registration has elapsed by 31.08.2021,\n                                   the time limit to apply for revocation of\n                                   cancellation of registration stands\n                                   extended up to 30th September 2021,\n                                   with the extension of timelines by\n                                   another 30 days beyond 30.09.2021 by\n                                   the Commissioner, on being satisfied, as\n                                   per proviso to sub-section (1) ofSection\n                                   30of the CGST Act.(c)   Where the time period of 30 days (and\n                                   not 60 days or 90 days) since\n                                   cancellation of registration has elapsed\n                                   by 31.08.2021, the time limit to apply for\n                                   revocation      of    cancellation      of\n                                   registration stands extended up to 30th\n                                   September 2021, with the extension of\n                                   timelines by another 30 days beyond\n                                   30.09.2021 by the Joint/ AdditionalW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                        Page 37 of 70:: 38 ::Commissioner and another 30 days by\n                                  the Commissioner, on being satisfied, as\n                                  per proviso to sub-section (1) ofSection\n                                  30of the CGST Act."***201. By Circular No.157/13/2021-GST, the Central Board of\n            Indirect Taxes and Customs, GST Policy Wing, dated\n            20.07.2021, it was classified as follows:"4.     On the basis of the legal opinion, it is hereby\n                      clarified that various actions/compliances under GST\n                      can be broadly categorised as follows:a)    Proceedings that need to be initiated or\n                            compliances that need to be done by the\n                            taxpayers:These actions would continue to be governed\n                            only by the statutory mechanism and time limit\n                            provided/ extensions granted under the statute\n                            itself. Various orders of the Hon'ble Supreme\n                            Court would not apply to the said proceedings/\n                            compliances on part of the tax payers.b)    Quasi-Judicial proceedings by tax authorities:-The tax authorities can continue to hear an\n                            dispose off proceedings where they are\n                            performing the functions as quasi-judicial\n                            authority. This may inter alia include disposal\n                            of application for refund, application for\n                            revocation of cancellation of registration,\n                            adjudication proceedings of demand notices,\n                            etc. Similarly, appeals which are filed and are\n                            pending, can continue to be heard and\n                            disposed off and the same will be governed by\n                            those extensions of time granted by the statues\n                            or notifications, if any.c)    Appeals by taxpayers/ tax authorities against\n                            any quasi-judicial order:W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                       Page 38 of 70:: 39 ::Wherever any appeal is required to filed before\n                            Joint/ Additional Commissioner (Appeals),\n                            Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Authority\n                            for Advance Ruling, Tribunal and various\n                            courts against any quasi-judicial order or\n                            where a proceeding for revision or\n                            rectification of any order is required to be\n                            undertaken, the time line for the same would\n                            stand extended as per the Hon'ble Supreme\n                            Court's order."202. Meanwhile, the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking note of the\n            hardship faced by the litigants had also extended the\n            limitation by its orders dated 23.03.2020, 08.04.2021,\n            27.04.2021 & 23.09.2021 in Recognizance of Extension of\n            Limitation, in Miscellaneous Application No.665/2021 in\n            SMW(C) No.3/2020.203. In its order dated 23.09.2021 in the above case, 2021 SCC\n            OnLine SC 947, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-Therefore, we dispose of the M.A. No. 665 of 2021 with the\n              following directions:--I.      In computing the period of limitation for any suit,\n                      appeal, application or proceeding, the period from\n                      15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded.Consequently, the balance period of limitation\n                      remaining as on 15.03.2021, if any, shall become\n                      available with effect from 03.10.2021.II.     In cases where the limitation would have expired\n                      during the period between 15.03.2020 till\n                      02.10.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance\n                      period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have\n                      a limitation period of 90 days from 03.10.2021. In the\n                      event the actual balance period of limitation\n                      remaining, with effect from 03.10.2021, is greater\n                      than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.\n              III.    The period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall also\n                      stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed\n                      underSections 23(4)and 29A of the Arbitration andW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                        Page 39 of 70:: 40 ::Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the\n                      Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and(c) ofSection 138of the Negotiable Instruments Act,\n                      1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s)\n                      of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits\n                      (within which the court or tribunal can condone\n                      delay) and termination of proceedings.IV.     The Government of India shall amend the guidelines\n                      for containment zones, to state."Regulated movement will be allowed for medical\n                      emergencies, provision of essential goods and\n                      services, and other necessary functions, such as, time\n                      bound applications, including for legal purposes, and\n                      educational and job-related requirements."8.7.   In the case of Aarcity Builders Private Limited Vrs. Union of India\n       and Others, CWP No.19029 of 2021, the Hon'ble Punjab and\n       Haryana High Court at Chandigarh vide Judgment dated\n       09.12.2021 taking note of Notification No.34/2021-- Central Tax,\n       dated 29.08.2021 and the Central Goods and Services Tax (Fifth\n       Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 observed as follows:"12. In our considered opinion, the interpretation sought to be\n            placed by learned counsel appearing for respondents is\n            unduly restricted. It cannot be lost site (sight) of that this\n            notification was issued in view of the Covid pandemic,\n            wherein even the Supreme Court had passed a blanket\n            order of extending the period of limitation. Once the\n            petitioners had already been granted benefit of the\n            notifications dated 23.04.2019 (Annexure P-6), dated\n            25.06.2020 (Annexure P-7) and dated 29.08.2021\n            (Annexure P-10), the time limit for making such application\n            should have extended up to the 30th day of September,\n            2021."8.8.   In the context of limitation fixed for filing written statement underthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the case of PrakashW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                        Page 40 of 70:: 41 ::Corporates Vrs. Dee Vee Projects Ltd., (2022) 5 SCC 112 =\n       (2022) 1 SCC (L&S) 771 = 2022 SCC OnLine SC 180 it has been\n       stated as follows:"21. While explaining the sweep and mandate of these\n            provisions, this Court said : (SCG Contracts (India) (P)\n            Ltd. Vrs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure (P) Ltd., (2019) 12\n            SCC 210 = (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 237, SCC p. 214, para 8)\n              "8.     ... A perusal of these provisions would show that\n                      ordinarily a written statement is to be filed within a\n                      period of 30 days. However, grace period of a further\n                      90 days is granted which the Court may employ for\n                      reasons to be recorded in writing and payment of\n                      such costs as it deems fit to allow such written\n                      statement to come on record. What is of great\n                      importance is the fact that beyond 120 days from the\n                      date of service of summons, the defendant shall\n                      forfeit the right to file the written statement and the\n                      court shall not allow the written statement to be taken\n                      on record. This is further buttressed by the proviso in\n                      Order 8 Rule 10 also adding that the court has no\n                      further power to extend the time beyond this period of\n                      120 days.***23.    If the aforesaid provisions and explained principles are\n              literally and plainly applied to the facts of the present case,\n              the 120th day from the date of service of summons came to\n              an end with 06.05.2021 and the defendant, who had earlier\n              been granted time for filing its written statement on\n              payment of costs, forfeited such right with the end of 120th\n              day i.e. 06.05.2021. However, it is required to be kept in\n              view that the provisions aforesaid and their interpretation\n              in SCG Contracts (India) (P) Ltd. Vrs. K.S. Chamankar\n              Infrastructure (P) Ltd., (2019) 12 SCC 210 = (2020) 1 SCC\n              (Civ) 237 operate in normal and non-extraordinary\n              circumstances with the usual functioning of courts. It is also\n              noteworthy that the above referred provisionsof CPCare\n              not the only provisions of law which lay down mandatoryW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                        Page 41 of 70:: 42 ::timelines for particular proceedings. The relevant\n              principles, in their normal and ordinary operation, are that\n              such statutory timelines are of mandatory character with\n              little, or rather no, discretion with the adjudicating\n              authority for enlargement."Notwithstanding such dicta, taking into consideration irregular\n       functioning of the Courts due to the COVID-19 pandemic\n       situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said reported case\n       [Prakash Corporates, (supra)] observed as follows:"25. It is not a matter of much debate that, starting from or\n            around the month of December 2019, the entire humanity\n            faced a situation which was unprecedentedly unfavourable\n            and unpleasant to almost all the persons and the\n            institutions. It was the outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic that\n            engulfed practically the entire globe; and the highly\n            contagious virus called SARS-CoV-2 started playing havoc\n            with its rapid transmission from one person to another.\n            Covid-19 carried with it the scary possibilities of\n            irretrievable damage to the respiratory systems, even\n            leading to deaths. In fact, the number of fatalities due to\n            this infection had been beyond imagination with survivors\n            also living under a constant threat. The unprecedented\n            health emergencies due to highly transmissible Covid-19\n            Virus led the administrations to take various containment\n            measures, including those of travel restrictions and\n            lockdowns as also of isolating the infected persons while\n            putting their close contacts in quarantine.26.    We need not elaborate on the havoc created by Covid-19\n              but the relevant aspect for the present purpose is that with\n              Covid-19, the movement of persons and working of almost\n              all the institutions landed in such difficulties which were\n              neither foreseen nor guarded against.27.    When the movements and gatherings of persons were\n              fraught with dangers and when lockdowns became\n              inevitable, the institutions related with the task of\n              administration of justice were also required to respond to\n              the challenges thrown by this pandemic. In this regard, thisW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                      Page 42 of 70:: 43 ::Court, apart from taking various measures of containment,\n              also took note of the practical difficulties of the litigants\n              and their lawyers; and this led to the suo motu order dated\n              23.03.2020 in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In\n              re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 = (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801.27.1. In the consciously worded order dated 23.03.2020\n             [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19\n             SCC 10 = (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801], this Court, while taking\n             note of the difficulties likely to be faced by the litigants in\n             filing their petitions/applications/suits/appeals/ proceedings\n             within the period of limitation, ordered that the period of\n             limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the\n             limitation prescribed under general or special laws,\n             whether condonable or not, shall stand extended w.e.f.\n             15.03.2020 until further orders. This order was passed in\n             exercise of plenary powers of this Court underArticle 142of the Constitution of India, which are complementary to\n             other powers specifically conferred by various statutes.\n             Even if the above referred provisionsof CPChad not been\n             stated in specific terms, the general mandate of the order\n             dated 23.03.2020 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation,\n             In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 = (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] was to\n             extend the period of limitation provided in any law for the\n             time being in force, irrespective of whether the same was\n             condonable or not, w.e.f. 15.03.2020 and until further\n             orders.27.2. Noticeably, on 06.05.2020, when special periods of\n             limitation under different enactments like the 1996 Act were\n             referred to, this Court further ordered [Cognizance for\n             Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 9 = (2021) 3\n             SCC (Cri) 799] that the limitation prescribed thereunder\n             shall stand extended w.e.f. 15.03.2020 until further orders.\n             It was a time when the country was under the grip of\n             lockdown, and the Court provided that in case limitation\n             had expired after 15.03.2020, the period between\n             15.03.2020 and lifting of lockdown in the jurisdictional\n             area would be extended for a period of 15 days after lifting\n             of lockdown.27.3. Further, on 10.07.2020 [Cognizance for Extension of\n             Limitation, In re, (2020) 9 SCC 468], this Court enlargedW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                       Page 43 of 70:: 44 ::the scope of initial order in relation to the timelines fixed in\n              Section 29-A andSection 23(4)of the 1996 Act.\n              Significantly,Section 23(4)of the 1996 Act mandates that\n              the statement of claim and defence shall be completed\n              within a time period of six months. Yet further, it was also\n              provided that the time for completing the process of\n              compulsory pre-litigation mediation underSection 12-Aof\n              the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 shall stand extended for\n              45 days after lifting of lockdown.27.4. On 08.03.2021 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In\n             re, (2021) 5 SCC 452 = (2021) 3 SCC (Civ) 40 = (2021) 2\n             SCC (Cri) 615 = (2021) 2 SCC (L&S) 50], suggestions\n             were made before this Court about lifting of lockdowns and\n             likely return of normalcy and, therefore, this Court\n             considered it proper to dispose of the said suo motu petition\n             with specific directions that while computing the period of\n             limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding,\n             the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 would stand\n             excluded. Though the said order dated 08.03.2021\n             [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 5\n             SCC 452 = (2021) 3 SCC (Civ) 40 = (2021) 2 SCC (Cri)\n             615 = (2021) 2 SCC (L&S) 50] was passed with a belief\n             that the adverse effects of the pandemic were receding and\n             normalcy was returning but, the spread of virus continued\n             and this led to an exponential surge in Covid-19 cases; and\n             to the second wave of pandemic in the country around the\n             months of March-April 2021. In this turn of events, this\n             Court again took up the matter in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 on\n             MA No. 665 of 2021, as moved by the Supreme Court\n             Advocates-on-Record Association and passed the necessary\n             order on 27.04.2021 [Cognizance for Extension of\n             Limitation, In re, (2021) 17 SCC 231 = 2021 SCC OnLine\n             SC 373] in revival of the previous orders.\n       27.5. At this juncture, we are impelled to refer to the fact that\n             much before passing of the order dated 27.04.2021\n             [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 17\n             SCC 231 = 2021 SCC OnLine SC 373] by this Court, the\n             alarming scenario due to the second wave of pandemic was\n             indeed taken note of by the High Court of Chhattisgarh;\n             and that the High Court issued the above-referredW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                         Page 44 of 70:: 45 ::administrative order dated 05.04.2021 for curtailed/\n              truncated functioning of the High Court as also the\n              subordinate courts. We shall elaborate on this aspect in the\n              next segment of discussion but, have indicated the same at\n              this juncture to highlight the fact that even before passing of\n              the order dated 27.04.2021 by this Court in Cognizance for\n              Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 17 SCC 231 = 2021\n              SCC OnLine SC 373, the trial court dealing with the subject\n              suit was already under containment measures; and could\n              not have functioned normally.27.6. Reverting to the orders passed by this Court, noticeable it is\n             that on 27.04.2021 [Cognizance for Extension of\n             Limitation, In re, (2021) 17 SCC 231 = 2021 SCC OnLine\n             SC 373], this Court restored the order dated 23.03.2020\n             [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19\n             SCC 10 = (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] and it was directed, in\n             continuation of the order dated 08.03.2021 [Cognizance for\n             Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 5 SCC 452 = (2021) 3\n             SCC (Civ) 40 = (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 615 = (2021) 2 SCC\n             (L&S) 50], that the periods of limitation as prescribed\n             under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial\n             or quasi-judicial proceedings, whether condonable or not,\n             shall stand extended. Ultimately, the said MA No. 665 of\n             2021 was disposed of on 23.09.2021 [Cognizance for\n             Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 18 SCC 250 = 2021\n             SCC OnLine SC 947] with this Court issuing directions\n             similar to those contained in the order dated 08.03.2021\n             [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 5\n             SCC 452 = (2021) 3 SCC (Civ) 40 = (2021) 2 SCC (Cri)\n             615 = (2021) 2 SCC (L&S) 50] but while providing that in\n             computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal,\n             application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till\n             02.10.2021 shall stand excluded.27.7. We are not elaborating on other directions issued by this\n             Court but, when read as a whole, it is but clear that the\n             anxiety of this Court had been to obviate the hardships\n             likely to be suffered by the litigants during the onslaughts of\n             this pandemic. Hence, the legal effect and coverage of the\n             orders passed by this Court in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 cannot\n             be unnecessarily narrowed and rather, having regard toW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                        Page 45 of 70:: 46 ::their purpose and object, full effect is required to be given\n              to such orders and directions. [To complete the scenario,\n              we may indicate in the passing that even after we had heard\n              this matter, there had been re-surge of Covid-19 cases with\n              spread of a new variant of the virus. The drastic re-surge in\n              the number of Covid cases has led this Court to again deal\n              with the matter in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 on an application\n              bearing No. 21 of 2022; and by the order dated 10.01.2022\n              [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2022) 3\n              SCC 117 = (2022) 2 SCC (Civ) 46 = (2022) 1 SCC (Cri)\n              580 = (2022) 1 SCC (L&S) 501], this Court again restored\n              the principal order dated 23.03.2020 [Cognizance for\n              Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 = (2021) 3\n              SCC (Cri) 801] and in continuation of the previous orders,\n              has further directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till\n              28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of\n              limitation as may be prescribed under any general or\n              special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial\n              proceedings. Be that as it may, the fresh order in SMWP\n              No. 3 of 2020 need not be elaborated for the present\n              purpose.]28.    As regards the operation and effect of the orders passed by\n              this Court in SMWP No. 3 of 2020, noticeable it is that even\n              though in the initial order dated 23.03.2020 [Cognizance\n              for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 =\n              (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801], this Court provided that the\n              period of limitation in all the proceedings, irrespective of\n              that prescribed under general or special laws, whether\n              condonable or not, shall stand extended w.e.f. 15.03.2020\n              but, while concluding the matter on 23.09.2021\n              [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 18\n              SCC 250 = 2021 SCC OnLine SC 947], this Court\n              specifically provided for exclusion of the period from\n              15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021. A look at the scheme of theLimitation Act, 1963makes it clear that while extension of\n              prescribed period in relation to an appeal or certain\n              applications has been envisaged underSection 5, the\n              exclusion of time has been provided in the provisions likeSections 12to15thereof. When a particular period is to be\n              excluded in relation to any suit or proceeding, essentially\n              the reason is that such a period is accepted by law to be theW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                      Page 46 of 70:: 47 ::one not referable to any indolence on the part of the\n              litigant, but being relatable to either the force of\n              circumstances or other requirements of law (like that of\n              mandatory two months' notice for a suit against the\n              Government [VideSection 15of the Limitation Act, 1963]).\n              The excluded period, as a necessary consequence, results in\n              enlargement of time, over and above the period prescribed.\n       28.1. Having regard to the purpose for which this Court had\n             exercised the plenary powers underArticle 142of the\n             Constitution of India and issued necessary orders from time\n             to time in SMWP No. 3 of 2020, we are clearly of the view\n             that the period envisaged finally in the order dated 23-9-\n             2021 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021)\n             18 SCC 250 = 2021 SCC OnLine SC 947] is required to be\n             excluded in computing the period of limitation even for\n             filing the written statement and even in cases where the\n             delay is otherwise not condonable. It gets perforce\n             reiterated that the orders in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 were of\n             extraordinary measures in extraordinary circumstances and\n             their operation cannot be curtailed with reference to the\n             ordinary operation of law.28.2. In other words, the orders passed by this Court on\n             23.03.2020 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re,\n             (2020) 19 SCC 10 = (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] , 06.05.2020\n             [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19\n             SCC 9 = (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 799], 10.07.2020 [Cognizance\n             for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 9 SCC 468] ,\n             27.04.2021 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re,\n             (2021) 17 SCC 231 = 2021 SCC OnLine SC 373] and\n             23.09.2021 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re,\n             (2021) 18 SCC 250 = 2021 SCC OnLine SC 947] in SMWP\n             No. 3 of 2020 leave nothing to doubt that special and\n             extraordinary measures were provided by this Court for\n             advancing the cause of justice in the wake of challenges\n             thrown by the pandemic; and their applicability cannot be\n             denied in relation to the period prescribed for filing the\n             written statement. It would be unrealistic and illogical to\n             assume that while this Court has provided for exclusion of\n             period for institution of the suit and therefore, a suit\n             otherwise filed beyond limitation (if the limitation hadW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                     Page 47 of 70:: 48 ::expired between 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021) could still be\n              filed within 90 days from 03.10.2021 but the period for\n              filing written statement, if expired during that period, has to\n              operate against the defendant.28.3. Therefore, in view of the orders passed by this Court in\n             SMWP No. 3 of 2020, we have no hesitation in holding that\n             the time-limit for filing the written statement by the\n             appellant in the subject suit did not come to an end on\n             06.05.2021.29.    It is also noteworthy that even before the scope of the\n              orders passed in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 came to be further\n              elaborated and specified in the orders dated 08.03.2021\n              [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 5\n              SCC 452 = (2021) 3 SCC (Civ) 40 = (2021) 2 SCC (Cri)\n              615 = (2021) 2 SCC (L&S) 50] and 23.09.2021\n              [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 18\n              SCC 250 = 2021 SCC OnLine SC 947], this Court dealt\n              with an akin scenario in SS Group (P) Ltd. Vrs. Aaditiya J.Garg, (2022) 11 SCC 445 = 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1050,\n              decided on 17.12.2020. In that case, in terms ofSection\n              38(2)(a)of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, 30 days'\n              time provided for filing the written statement expired on\n              12.08.2020 and the extendable period of 15 days also\n              expired on 27.08.2020. Admittedly, the written statement\n              was filed on 31.08.2020, which was beyond the permissible\n              period of 45 days. The Constitution Bench of this Court has\n              held in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. Hilli\n              Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 757 =\n              (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 338 that the Consumer Court has no\n              power to extend the time for filing response to the complaint\n              beyond 45 days. After taking note of the applicable\n              provisions of law as also the mandate of the Constitution\n              Bench, this Court referred to the orders until then passed in\n              SMWP No. 3 of 2020 and held that the limitation for filing\n              written statement would be deemed to have been extended.30.    This Court, inter alia, observed and held as follows: [SS\n              Group (P) Ltd. Vrs. Aaditiya J. Garg, (2022) 11 SCC 445 =\n              2020 SCC OnLine SC 1050], SCC paras 10-11)W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                        Page 48 of 70:: 49 ::"10. In the present matter, it is an admitted fact that the\n                   period of limitation of 30 days to file the written\n                   statement had expired on 12.08.2020 and the\n                   extended period of 15 days expired on 27.08.2020.\n                   This period expired when the order dated 23.03.2020\n                   passed by this Court in Cognizance for Extension of\n                   Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 = (2021) 3 SCC\n                   (Cri) 801 was continuing.11.     In view of the aforesaid, in our opinion, the limitation\n                      for filing the written statement in the present\n                      proceedings before the National Commission would\n                      be deemed to have been extended as it is clear from\n                      the order dated 23.03.2020 [Cognizance for\n                      Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 =\n                      (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] that the extended period of\n                      limitation was applicable to all petitions/\n                      applications/suits/appeals and all other proceedings.As such, the delay of four days in filing the written\n                      statements in the pending proceedings before the\n                      National Commission deserves to be allowed, and is\n                      accordingly allowed."***\n       32.2. In fact, in S. Kasi Vrs. State, (2021) 12 SCC 1 = 2020 SCC\n             OnLine SC 529, this Court also noticed that a coordinate\n             Bench of the same High Court had already held [Settu Vrs.\n             State, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 1026] that the said order\n             dated 23.03.2020 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation,\n             In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 = (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] did not\n             cover the offences for whichSection 167CrPC was\n             applicable but, in the order [S. Kasi Vrs. State, 2020 SCC\n             OnLine Mad 1244] impugned, the other learned Single\n             Judge of the same High Court took a view contrary to the\n             earlier decision of the coordinate Bench; and that was\n             found to be entirely impermissible. In any case, the said\n             decision, concerning the matter of personal liberty\n             referable toArticle 21of the Constitution of India and then,\n             relating to the proceedings to be undertaken by an\n             investigating officer, cannot be applied to the present case\n             relating to the matter of filing written statement by the\n             defendant in a civil suit.W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                         Page 49 of 70:: 50 ::33.    So far as the decision of this Court in Sagufa Ahmed Vrs.Upper Assam Plywood Products (P) Ltd., (2021) 2 SCC 317\n              = (2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 178 is concerned, a few relevant\n              factors related with the said case need to be noticed. In that\n              case, the appellants had moved an application before the\n              Guwahati Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal for\n              winding up of the respondent company. The petition was\n              dismissed on 25.10.2019 [Sagufa Ahmed Vrs. Upper Assam\n              Plywood Products (P) Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine NCLT 749].\n              The appellants applied for a certified copy of the order\n              dated 25.10.2019 [Sagufa Ahmed Vrs. Upper Assam\n              Plywood Products (P) Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine NCLT 749]\n              only on 21.11.2019 or 22.11.2019 and received the certified\n              copy of the order through their counsel on 19.12.2019.\n              However, the appellants filed the statutory appeal before\n              the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal only on\n              20.07.2020 with an application for condonation of delay.\n              The Appellate Tribunal dismissed [Sagufa Ahmed Vrs.\n              Upper Assam Plywood Products (P) Ltd., 2020 SCC\n              OnLine NCLAT 609] the application for condonation of\n              delay on the ground that it had no power to condone the\n              delay beyond a period of 45 days. Consequently, the appeal\n              was also dismissed. In that case, it was indisputable that\n              even while counting from 19.12.2019, the period of 45 days\n              expired on 02.02.2020 and another period of 45 days, for\n              which the Appellate Tribunal could have condoned the\n              delay, also expired on 18.03.2020. To overcome this\n              difficulty, the appellants relied upon the aforesaid order\n              dated 23.03.2020 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation,\n              In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 = (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801].\n       33.1. This Court observed that the appellants were not entitled to\n             take refuge under the above order in SMWP No. 3 of 2020\n             because what was extended was only the period of\n             limitation and not the period up to which delay could be\n             condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute.\n             This Court said thus: [Sagufa Ahmed Vrs. Upper Assam\n             Plywood Products (P) Ltd., (2021) 2 SCC 317 = (2021) 2\n             SCC (Civ) 178], SCC p. 322, para 17)\n              "17. ...What was extended by the above order\n                   [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re,W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                       Page 50 of 70:: 51 ::(2020) 19 SCC 10 = (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] of this\n                      Court was only "the period of limitation" and not the\n                      period up to which delay can be condoned in exercise\n                      of discretion conferred by the statute. The above\n                      order [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re,\n                      (2020) 19 SCC 10 = (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] passed\n                      by this Court was intended to benefit vigilant litigants\n                      who were prevented due to the pandemic and the\n                      lockdown, from initiating proceedings within the\n                      period of limitation prescribed by general or special\n                      law. It is needless to point out that the law of\n                      limitation finds its root in two Latin maxims, one of\n                      which is vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura\n                      subveniunt which means that the law will assist only\n                      those who are vigilant about their rights and not\n                      those who sleep over them."33.2. One of the significant facts to be noticed is that the said\n             decision in Sagufa Ahmed Vrs. Upper Assam Plywood\n             Products (P) Ltd., (2021) 2 SCC 317 = (2021) 2 SCC (Civ)\n             178 was rendered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court\n             much before the aforesaid final orders dated 08.03.2021\n             [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 5\n             SCC 452 = (2021) 3 SCC (Civ) 40 = (2021) 2 SCC (Cri)\n             615 = (2021) 2 SCC (L&S) 50] and 27.09.2021 (sic\n             27.04.2021 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re,\n             (2021) 17 SCC 231 = 2021 SCC OnLine SC 373]) in\n             SMWP No. 3 of 2020 by another three-Judge Bench of this\n             Court. In those final orders, this Court not only provided\n             for the extension of period of limitation but also made it\n             clear that in computing the period of limitation for any suit,\n             appeal, application or proceeding, the period from\n             15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded. Such\n             proposition of exclusion, which occurred in the later orders,\n             was not before this Court in Sagufa Ahmed Vrs. Upper\n             Assam Plywood Products (P) Ltd., (2021) 2 SCC 317 =\n             (2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 178, which was decided much earlier\n             i.e. on 18.09.2020.***34.    On behalf of the respondent, much emphasis has been laid\n              on the submission that the appellant was regularlyW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                         Page 51 of 70:: 52 ::appearing in the Court and, therefore, cannot take\n              advantage of the orders passed in SMWP No. 3 of 2020. It\n              is true that the appellant had indeed caused appearance in\n              the Court in response to the summons and sought time for\n              filing its written statement but at the same time, it is also\n              undeniable that at the relevant point of time, the second\n              wave of pandemic was simmering and then, it engulfed the\n              country with rather unexpected intensity and ferocity. Then,\n              on 27.04.2021 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In\n              re, (2021) 17 SCC 231 = 2021 SCC OnLine SC 373], this\n              Court restored the operation of the order dated 23.03.2020\n              in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19\n              SCC 10 = (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801. Putting all these factors\n              together, we are unable to accept the submissions made on\n              behalf of the respondent that because of earlier appearance\n              or prayer for adjournment, the appellant-defendant would\n              not be entitled to the relaxation available under the\n              extraordinary orders passed by this Court."8.9.   Noteworthy here to take note of the Order dated 10.01.2022\n       passed in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2022) 3\n       SCC 117 = (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 580 = (2022) 2 SCC (Civ) 46 =\n       (2022) 1 SCC (L&S) 501 = 2022 SCC OnLine SC 27, which\n       requires to be reproduced hereunder:"1.    In March 2020, this Court took suo motu cognizance of the\n              difficulties that might be faced by the litigants in filing\n              petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all   other     quasi\n              proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed\n              under the general law of limitation or under any special\n              laws (both Central and/or State) due to the outbreak of the\n              Covid-19 Pandemic.2.     On 23.03.2020, this Court directed [Cognizance for\n              Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 = (2021) 3\n              SCC (Cri) 801] extension of the period of limitation in all\n              proceedings before courts/tribunals including this Court\n              w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till further orders. On 8-3-2021\n              [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 5\n              SCC 452 = (2021) 3 SCC (Civ) 40 = (2021) 2 SCC (Cri)W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                      Page 52 of 70:: 53 ::615 = (2021) 2 SCC (L&S) 50] , the order dated 23-3-2020\n              [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19\n              SCC 10 = (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] was brought to an end,\n              permitting the relaxation of period of limitation between\n              15.03.2020 and 14.03.2021. While doing so, it was made\n              clear that the period of limitation would start from\n              15.03.2021.3.     Thereafter, due to a second surge in Covid-19 cases, the\n              Supreme       Court     Advocates-on-Record     Association\n              (SCAORA) intervened in the suo motu proceedings by filing\n              Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 seeking\n              restoration of the order dated 23.03.2020 [Cognizance for\n              Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 = (2021) 3\n              SCC (Cri) 801] relaxing limitation. The aforesaid\n              Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 was disposed of\n              by this Court vide order dated 23.09.2021 [Cognizance for\n              Extension of Limitation, In re, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 947],\n              wherein this Court extended the period of limitation in all\n              proceedings before the courts/tribunals including this Court\n              w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021.4.     The present miscellaneous application has been filed by the\n              Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association in the\n              context of the spread of the new variant of the Covid-19 and\n              the drastic surge in the number of Covid cases across the\n              country. Considering the prevailing conditions, the\n              applicants are seeking the following:(i)     Allow the present application by restoring the order\n                      dated 23.03.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in\n                      Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020)\n                      19 SCC 10 = (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801; and(ii)    Allow the present application by restoring the order\n                      dated 27.04.2021 passed by this Hon'ble Court in\n                      Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021)\n                      17 SCC 231 = 2021 SCC OnLine SC 373; and(iii)   Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble\n                      Court may deem fit and proper.W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                       Page 53 of 70:: 54 ::5.     Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the\n              learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on\n              public health and adversities faced by litigants in the\n              prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of\n              MA No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions:5.1.    The order dated 23.03.2020 [Cognizance for\n                      Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 =\n                      (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] is restored and in\n                      continuation of the subsequent orders dated\n                      08.03.2021 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation,\n                      In re, (2021) 5 SCC 452 = (2021) 3 SCC (Civ) 40 =\n                      (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 615 = (2021) 2 SCC (L&S) 50],\n                      27.04.2021 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation,\n                      In re, (2021) 17 SCC 231 = 2021 SCC OnLine SC\n                      373] and 23.09.2021 [Cognizance for Extension of\n                      Limitation, In re, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 947] , it is\n                      directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till\n                      28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of\n                      limitation as may be prescribed under any general or\n                      special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.5.2.    Consequently, the balance period of limitation\n                      remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become\n                      available with effect from 01.03.2022.5.3.    In cases where the limitation would have expired\n                      during the period between 15.03.2020 till\n                      28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance\n                      period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have\n                      a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the\n                      event the actual balance period of limitation\n                      remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater\n                      than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.5.4.    It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020\n                      till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in\n                      computing the periods prescribed underSections\n                      23(4)and29-Aof the Arbitration and Conciliation\n                      Act, 1996,Section 12-Aof the Commercial Courts\n                      Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) ofSection 138of\n                      the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any otherW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                        Page 54 of 70:: 55 ::laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for\n                      instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the\n                      court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination\n                      of proceedings.6.     As prayed for by the learned Senior Counsel, MA No. 29 of\n              2022 is dismissed as withdrawn."8.10. It is observed that the order of cancellation of registration was\n       passed with effect from 15.10.2019 and in terms ofSection 107the petitioner was required to file the appeal within three months\n       from the date of communication of the order and further\n       condonable period available was one month therefrom. In the\n       present case total period lapsed on 14.02.2020. The Hon'ble\n       Supreme Court of India in Prakash Corporates Vrs. Dee Vee\n       Projects Ltd., (2022) 5 SCC 112 = (2022) 1 SCC (L&S) 771 =\n       2022 SCC OnLine SC 180 took cognizance of "unprecedentedly\n       unfavourable and unpleasant" situation faced by entire humanity\n       from or around the month of December 2019. The Appellate\n       Authority, while passing order on 07.10.2021, had no occasion to\n       take into consideration the orders of the Hon'ble Court more\n       particularly Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2022)\n       3 SCC 117 = (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 580 = (2022) 2 SCC (Civ) 46 =\n       (2022) 1 SCC (L&S) 501 = 2022 SCC OnLine SC 27 and Prakash\n       Corporates Vrs. Dee Vee Projects Ltd., (2022) 5 SCC 112 =\n       (2022) 1 SCC (L&S) 771 = 2022 SCC OnLine SC 180. This Court\n       finds that the Appellate Authority has not taken note of relevant\n       notification(s) and amendments carried thereto as discussed in the\n       foregoing paragraphs.8.11. Close reading of orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court\n       extending period of limitation, the Judgment rendered in the caseW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                        Page 55 of 70:: 56 ::of Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center Vrs. The Appellate Authority and\n       Another, 2022 (61) GSTL 515 (Mad) unflinchingly discussing the\n       purport of amendment(s) to the provisions of the statute, the\n       Judgment dated 09.12.2021 of Punjab & Haryana High Court in\n       the case of Aarcity Builders Private Limited Vrs. Union of India\n       and Others, CWP No.19029 of 2021 and the notifications with the\n       clarifications issued by the Central Government persuades this\n       Court to conclude that there has been pious intention to facilitate\n       the business to be carried out so as to enable smooth payment of\n       taxes and not to debar the taxpayers, but to bring them back to\n       GST fold. Therefore, this Court, being not oblivious of\n       fundamental rights conferred on every citizen underArticle\n       19(1)(g)vis-à-visArticle 14, is one with the view expressed in\n       Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center and Aarcity Builders Private Limited\n       (supra). While subscribing to the observation and interpretation,\n       this Court feels it apposite to quote the following from the\n       judgment in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center (supra):"209. Thus, the intention of the Government has been to allow the\n             persons like the petitioners to file a fresh application and to\n             process the application for revocation of the cancellation of\n             registration by the officers.210. In my view, no useful purpose will be served by keeping\n            these petitioners out of the bounds of GST regime under the\n            respective GST enactments other than to allow further\n            leakage of the revenue and to isolate these petitioners from\n            the main stream contrary to the objects of the respective\n            GST enactments.211. The purpose of GST registration is only to ensure just tax\n            gets collected on supplies of goods or service or both and is\n            paid to the exchequer. Keeping these petitioners outside theW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                       Page 56 of 70:: 57 ::bounds of the GST regime is a self-defeating move as no tax\n              will get paid on the supplies of these petitioners.\n              ***221. While exercising jurisdiction, underArticle 226of the\n            Constitution, the powers of the Court to do justice i.e., what\n            is good for the society, can neither be restricted nor\n            curtailed. This power underArticle 226can be exercised to\n            effectuate the rule of law.222. Therefore, power of this Court underArticle 226of the\n            Constitution of India is being exercised cautiously in favour\n            of the petitioners as this power is conceived to serve the\n            ends of law and not to transgress them.223. In Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vrs. Union of India, (1997) 5\n            SCC 536, in Paragraph No.77, the Hon'ble Supreme Court\n            observed that\n              "So far as the jurisdiction of the High Court underArticle\n              226--or for that matter, the jurisdiction of this Court underArticle 32--is concerned, it is obvious that the provisions\n              of the Act cannot bar and curtail these remedies. It is,\n              however, equally obvious that while exercising the power\n              under Article 226/Article 32, the Court would certainly take\n              note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of\n              the Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with\n              the provisions of the enactment. Even while acting in\n              exercise of the said constitutional power, the High Court\n              cannot ignore the law nor can it override it."224. Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners have shown\n            utter disregard to the provisions of the Acts and have failed\n            to take advantage of the amnesty scheme given to revive\n            their registration, this Court is inclined to quash the\n            impugned orders with grant consequential reliefs subject to\n            terms.225. The provisions of the GST enactments cannot be interpreted\n            so as to deny the right to carry on Trade and Commerce to\n            a citizen and subjects. The constitutional guarantee is\n            unconditional and unequivocal and must be enforced\n            regardless of the defect in the scheme of the GSTW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                       Page 57 of 70:: 58 ::enactments. The right to carry on trade or professoin also\n              cannot be curtailed. Only reasonable restriction can be\n              imposed. To deny such rights would militate against their\n              rights underArticle 14, read withArticle 19(1)(g)andArticle 21of the Constitution of India."8.12. Vide Order dated 17.08.2022 Madras High Court in M. Mallika\n       Mahal Vrs. The Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise,\n       W.P. No.10663 of 2022, &c. while ascertaining the position as to\n       finality of Judgment in Tvl Suguna Cutpiece Center (supra) has\n       observed as follows:"7.    All other petitioners have approached this Court direct, by\n              way of writ petition, seeking the relief of restoration. A\n              learned Single Judge of this Court in a batch of writ\n              petitions in WP.Nos.25048 of 2021 and batch has, by way\n              of an order dated 31.01.2022, considered the cases of\n              identically placed petitioners as before me. In the cases of\n              those petitioners as well, orders of revocation had been\n              passed and some of the petitioners had approached the\n              assessing authority in terms ofSection 30seeking\n              revocation, some had appealed the orders of cancellation\n              underSection 107and others had merely approached this\n              Court underArticle 226of the Constitution of India.8.     The learned Judge has considered interim events including\n              the position that Amnesty Schemes had not been availed by\n              those petitioners. In fine, the learned Judge accepts the case\n              of the petitioners, imposing certain conditions in para 229\n              of the order. A specific query was put to the State Counsel\n              as to whether order dated 31.01.2022 has attained finality.\n              He brings to my notice a communication that has been\n              addressed by the Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner\n              of Commissioner of Commercial Tax to the GST Council on\n              31.03.2022 seeking the view of the Council and its\n              guidance/directions in regard to the order of this Court\n              dated 31.01.2022."8.13. An identical fact-situation arose before the Hon'ble Gujarat High\n       Court, where the Appellate Authority did not entertain appeal onW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                       Page 58 of 70:: 59 ::the ground of limitation qua cancellation of registration being\n       made on 10.07.2019. In the case of Tahura Enterprise Vrs. Union\n       of India, R/Special Civil Application No.3442 of 2022, by a\n       Judgment dated 30.03.2022, said Court observed thus:"8.    Indisputably, the cancellation of registration was on the\n              ground of non-filing of returns by the writ-applicants. The\n              impugned order cancelling the registration came to be\n              passed on 10.07.2019. The writ-applicants preferred an\n              application before the appellate authority for revocation of\n              cancellation of registration, but such application was not\n              entertained on the ground that the same was time barred.9.     We take notice of the fact that the Central Board of Indirect\n              Taxes and Customs extended the time limit for filing\n              application for revocation of cancellation of registration\n              and the limitation for all the orders passed on or before\n              12.06.2020 was to effectively commence from 31.08.2020.\n              As the application filed by the writ applicants for\n              revocation of cancellation of registration was looked into\n              by a quasi-judicial authority, the order of the Supreme\n              Court extending the period of limitation in view of the\n              Covid-19 Pandemic would apply and in such\n              circumstances, the limitation in accordance with the order\n              passed by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs\n              could be said to have been extended.10.    Indisputably, the application requesting for restoration of\n              registration was filed in July 2021 i.e. during the period\n              when the order of the Supreme Court extending the\n              limitation was in operation. More importantly, the writ-\n              applicants have paid the requisite amount towards tax on\n              the basis of self-assessed liability on 06.09.2021. Since the\n              registration of certificate of the writ applicants came to be\n              cancelled solely on the ground of non-filing of the returns,\n              which was on account of non-payment of tax and the writ-\n              applicants now having paid such outstanding tax, the\n              registration certificate of the writ-applicants should be\n              ordered to be restored so that they are able to continue with\n              their business."W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                      Page 59 of 70:: 60 ::8.14. Refusing to decide the challenge against order of cancellation of\n       registration on the ground of limitation would be counter-productive approach as the taxable person is deprived to carry on\n       business in the sense that no tax invoice can be raised. This would\n       ultimately impact the recovery of taxes and thereby, the action of\n       the authority would work against the interest of revenue.\n       Therefore, the opposite parties are required to take a pragmatic\n       view in the matter. The introduction of GST regime presupposes\n       hassle-free and citizen friendly taxation process and the taxpayer\n       is not to be treated as a person hostile to the Department. It is but\n       obvious that if the taxpayer adopts clandestine business and adopts\n       dubious device to evade payment of tax, then he has to be dealt\n       with sternly.8.15. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be allowed\n       with certain directions.9.     It is pertinent to say that writ petition is maintainable challenging\n       the order in appeal, albeit the petitioner is entitled to carry the\n       matter before the Appellate Tribunal underSection 112of the\n       CGST Act inasmuch as even after lapse of 5 years, the said\n       Appellate Tribunal is not constituted underSection 109.9.1.   Pertinent here to refer to the ratio of Judgment laid down by the\n       Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohamed Ali Vrs. V. Jaya\n       & Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 817, in the context of\n       maintainability of writ petition qua condonation of delay in\n       preferring civil revision underSection 115the Code of Civil\n       Procedure, 1908 vis-a-vis availability of alternative remedy. The\n       said Hon'ble Court has been pleased to lay down as follows:W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                       Page 60 of 70:: 61 ::20.    Even otherwise and as observed hereinabove, against the\n              ex-parte judgment and decree, the remedy by way of an\n              appeal before the First Appellate Court was available.Therefore, the High Court ought not to have entertained the\n              revision application underSection 115of CPC and underArticle 227of the Constitution of India. The High Court\n              ought not to have entertained such a revision application\n              challenging the ex-parte judgment and decree. Once there\n              was a statutory alternative remedy by way of an appeal\n              available to the defendants, the High Court ought not to\n              have entertained a writ petition or revision application\n              underArticle 227of the Constitution of India.21.    At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of\n              Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai\n              Vrs. Tuticorin Educational Society, (2019) 9 SCC 538, is\n              required to be referred to. In the said decision, it is\n              observed and held by this Court that wherever the\n              proceedings are underthe Code of Civil Procedureand the\n              forum is the civil court, the availability of a remedy underCPC, will deter the High Court and therefore, the High\n              Court shall not entertain the revision underArticle 227of\n              the Constitution of India especially in a case where a\n              specific remedy of appeal is provided underthe CPCitself.\n              While holding so, it is observed and held in paragraphs 11\n              to 13 as under:--"11. Secondly, the High Court ought to have seen that\n                   when a remedy of appeal underSection 104(1)(i)read with Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure\n                   Code, 1908, was directly available, Respondents 1\n                   and 2 ought to have taken recourse to the same. It is\n                   true that the availability of a remedy of appeal may\n                   not always be a bar for the exercise of supervisory\n                   jurisdiction of the High Court. In A. Venkatasubbiah\n                   Naidu Vrs. S. Chellappan, (2000) 7 SCC 695, this\n                   Court held that "though no hurdle can be put against\n                   the exercise of the constitutional powers of the High\n                   Court, it is a well-recognised principle which gained\n                   judicial recognition that the High Court should direct\n                   the party to avail himself of such remedies before he\n                   resorts to a constitutional remedy".W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                      Page 61 of 70:: 62 ::12.     But courts should always bear in mind a distinction\n                      between (i) cases where such alternative remedy is\n                      available before civil courts in terms of the\n                      provisionsof Code of Civil Procedure, and (ii) cases\n                      where such alternative remedy is available under\n                      special enactments and/or statutory rules and the\n                      fora provided therein happen to be quasi-judicial\n                      authorities and tribunals. In respect of cases falling\n                      under the first category, which may involve suits and\n                      other proceedings before civil courts, the availability\n                      of an appellate remedy in terms of the provisionsof\n                      CPC, may have to be construed as a near total bar.Otherwise, there is a danger that someone may\n                      challenge in a revision underArticle 227, even a\n                      decree passed in a suit, on the same grounds on\n                      which Respondents 1 and 2 invoked the jurisdiction\n                      of the High Court. This is why, a 3-member Bench of\n                      this Court, while overruling the decision in Surya\n                      Dev Rai Vrs. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675,\n                      pointed out in Radhey Shyam Vrs. Chhabi Nath,\n                      (2015) 5 SCC 423 = (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 67 that\n                      "orders of civil court stand on different footing\n                      from the orders of authorities or tribunals or courts\n                      other than judicial/civil courts".13.     Therefore wherever the proceedings are underthe\n                      Code of Civil Procedureand the forum is the civil\n                      court, the availability of a remedy underthe CPC,\n                      will deter the High Court, not merely as a measure of\n                      self-imposed restriction, but as a matter of discipline\n                      and prudence, from exercising its power of\n                      superintendence under the Constitution. Hence, the\n                      High Court ought not to have entertained the revision\n                      underArticle 227especially in a case where a\n                      specific remedy of appeal is provided underthe Code\n                      of Civil Procedureitself."22.    Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid\n              decision to the facts of the case on hand, the High Court\n              ought not to have entertained the revision petition underArticle 227of the Constitution of India against the ex-parte\n              judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court inW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                        Page 62 of 70:: 63 ::view of a specific remedy of appeal as provided underthe\n              Code of Civil Procedureitself. Therefore, the High Court\n              has committed a grave error in entertaining the revision\n              petition underArticle 227challenging the ex-parte\n              judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court and\n              in quashing and setting aside the same in exercise of\n              powers underArticle 227of the Constitution of India."[Emphasis supplied]\n\n9.2.   In the case of Vinod Kumar Vrs. Commissioner of Uttarakhand\n       State GST and Others, Special Appeal No. 123 of 2022, vide\n       Judgment dated 20th June, 2022 the set of facts available before\n       the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court was that on account of\n       failure to file returns for a continuous period of six months, which\n       was mandatory under the Uttarakhand GST Act, the registration\n       got cancelled on 21.09.2019 and the appeal before the First\n       Appellate Authority was dismissed on the ground of delay;however, the writ petition filed by petitioner/appellant was also\n       dismissed as not maintainable. In the Appeal against Order in Writ\n       Petition passed by the Single Judge of said High Court while\n       holding that writ petition was maintainable, the Court observed\n       the following:"4)    Thus it is apparent that the Statute does not provide any\n              prohibition against exercise of the writ jurisdiction underArticle 226of the Constitution by the High Court. The\n              practice of not entertaining the writ petition, except in the\n              cases accepted above by the Hon'ble High Court, in a case\n              where an alternative and efficacious remedy is available, is\n              an internal mechanism, which the Court has imposed upon\n              themselves.5)     Moreover, this issue whether a writ petition is maintainable\n              when the limitation provided for filing an appeal is not\n              extendable, as in this case, was considered by the FullW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                      Page 63 of 70:: 64 ::Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case ofPanoli\n              Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and others,\n              2015 SCC OnLine Guj 570 = AIR 2015 Guj 97 = (2015) 56\n              (2) GLR 1395 (FB) = (2015) 3 KLT (SN 40) 30 (F.B.) =\n              (2015) 326 ELT 532 = (2016) 2 GLH 337 (FB), where the\n              case was referred to the larger Bench for determining three\n              questions. The third question is important for this case,\n              which is quoted below:(3)     When if the statutory remedy of appeal underSection\n                      35is barred by the law of limitation whether in a\n                      Writ Petition underArticle 226of the Constitution of\n                      India, the order passed by the original adjudicating\n                      authority could be challenged on merit?6)     The answer was given by the Hon'ble Full Bench of the\n              Gujarat High Court in paragraph 31 ofthe said judgment,\n              especially, in sub-paragraph (3). The Full Bench of the\n              Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that on the third question\n              the answer is in affirmative, but with the clarification that\n\n              A)      The petition underArticle 226of the Constitution can\n                      be preferred for challenging the order passed by the\n                      original adjudicating authority in following\n                      circumstances that:A.1) The authority has passed the order without\n                           jurisdiction and by assuming jurisdiction\n                           which there exist none\n                      A.2) Has acted in flagrant disregard to law or rules\n                           or procedure or acted in violation of principles\n                           of natural justice where no procedure is\n                           specified.B)      Resultantly, there is failure of justice or it has\n                      resulted into gross injustice. We may also sum up by\n                      saying that the power is there even in aforesaid\n                      circumstances, but the exercise is discretionary\n                      which will be governed solely by the dictates of the\n                      judicial conscience enriched by judicial experience\n                      and practical wisdom of the judge.W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                        Page 64 of 70:: 65 ::7)     It is apparent from the record that a notice was given on the\n              website, which in our considered opinion, is not sufficient,\n              and a personal notice has to be given before cancellation of\n              the registration. Therefore, the Court can invoke its\n              jurisdiction underArticle 226of the Constitution and hold\n              that the orders passed by the learned Commissioner can be\n              interfered in a writ jurisdiction."9.3.   The present writ petition is, therefore, entertained on the peculiar\n       facts of the case and circumstances that prevailed at the relevant\n       period.9.4.   As already stated, since the Appellate Tribunal has not yet been\n       constituted as perSection 109of the CGST Act, there being no\n       alternative remedy available for the petitioner to question the\n       veracity of the order passed in the first appeal, this Court prefers\n       to exercise its writ jurisdiction to undo prejudice and injustice\n       caused to the petitioner. Thus, this Court is of the considered view\n       that grave injustice would ensue if extraordinary jurisdiction underArticle 226of the Constitution of India is not exercised. In the\n       present case scales of justice weigh in favour of the petitioner.9.5.   In the event GST registration number is not restored, the petitioner\n       would not be in a position to raise a bill as e-invoice system has\n       been put in place in the GST regime. So, if the petitioner is denied\n       of revival of GST registration number, it would affect his right to\n       livelihood (Article 21of the Constitution of India) as also right to\n       carry on business [Article 19(1)(g)].If he is denied of his right to\n       livelihood because of the fact that his GST Registration has been\n       cancelled, and that he has no remedy of appeal especially when\n       Appellate Tribunal has not been constituted in terms ofSection\n       109read withSection 112, then it would tantamount to violationW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                        Page 65 of 70:: 66 ::of provision enshrined underArticle 21of the Constitution of\n       India as the right to livelihood springs from the right to life\n       avowed underArticle 21.10.    This Court, in the case of one of the parties, namely in the case of\n       Suntony Signage Pvt. Ltd., whose registration under theCGST Actbeing cancelled and appeal being rejected on the ground of\n       limitation by way of common order dated 07.10.2021, which order\n       is subject-matter of challenge in the present writ, allowed the writ\n       petition being W.P(C). No.41856 of 2021 [Suntony Signage Pvt.Ltd. Vrs. Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Services\n       Tax & Others] vide Order dated 12.07.2022 by setting aside said\n       Appellate Order. In certain other cases, one of them being\n       Nirmani Engineers and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. The\n       Commissioner of CT&GST, Odisha and Others, W.P.(C)\n       No.15934 of 2021, vide Order dated 05.05.2021 condoning the\n       delay in invoking proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and\n       Services Tax Rules, 2017, this Court allowed the petitioner therein\n       to deposit tax, interest, penalty with late fee and furnish returns for\n       the defaulted period.11.    Apart from the above, it may be worthwhile to say that the\n       Appellate Authority should have borne in mind the predicament\n       faced by taxpayers on the introduction of new set of procedures by\n       way of promulgation of the CGST Act and the OGST Act and\n       rules framed thereunder and time required to be taken to get\n       acquainted. It is pertinent to refer to the following excerpts from\n       Judgment dated 24.02.2022 delivered by the Hon'ble Gujarat\n       High Court in the case of Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing WorksW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                         Page 66 of 70:: 67 ::Vrs. State of Gujarat & 2 Other(s), R/Special Civil Application\n       No. 18860 of 2021:"15.1 The Appellate authority ought to have appreciated that the\n             writ applicants at relevant point of time i.e. in year 2017,\n             applied for registration which request was favourably\n             considered by the authorities under the Act with a specific\n             registration number allotted to the writ applicant. It was a\n             transitional phase, whereby the oldCST Actwas repealed\n             and the new regime of CGST/ GGST has come into force.\n             With the different forms and procedure envisaged\n             thereunder, any layman is bound to take time to adhered to\n             the norms. The Record reveals that subsequently the writ\n             applicants have claimed to have filed their returns and have\n             even deposited all dues. We further notice that such exercise\n             has been undertaken through the writ applicant's Tax\n             Consultant who were professionally engaged to undertake\n             such task. Unfortunately, information of the returns for\n             certain period not being uploaded, surfaced in the year\n             2019 and the cause explained suggest that circumstances\n             were beyond the writ applicant's reach. In such peculiar\n             circumstances, it was least expected of the Appellate\n             Authority to condone the delay for filing appeal, more so,\n             with the onset of Pandemic Covid-19, preventing further\n             follow up action. In the peculiar facts and circumstances,\n             the authority ought to have condoned the delay which\n             unfortunately was not done, despite the writ applicant\n             having made a fervent request for condonation of delay in\n             filing appeal seeking revocation of cancellation of\n             registration."12.    On the aforesaid analysis of factual and legal position, it is apt to\n       set aside the Appellate Order dated 07.10.2021. As a consequence,\n       this Court in the aforesaid circumstances thought of remitting the\n       matter to the Appellate Authority for consideration of merits\n       afresh. Nevertheless, this matter relates to registration of the\n       petitioner which has been cancelled since 15.10.2019 and involves\n       right to carry on business and sending the matter back to theW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                       Page 67 of 70:: 68 ::Appellate Authority would further delay the process. It is taken\n       into consideration that as the consequential effective step is\n       required    to      be   taken    by        the   proper   officer/Registering\n       Authority/Superintendent, it is, therefore, deemed necessary\n       instead of directing the Appellate Authority to do the needful, this\n       Court requests the proper officer to grant opportunity to the\n       petitioner for taking all required step to revive registration. Thus,\n       writ of mandamus is liable to be issued keeping in mind the\n       notifications and the suggestions put forth by Mr. Rudra Prasad\n       Kar, learned Advocate. So does this Court in the present case to\n       ensure ends of justice in the light of directions envisaged in Tvl.\n       Suguna Cutpiece Center Vrs. The Appellate Authority and\n       Another, 2022 (61) GSTL 515 (Mad) by the Madras High Court\n       and Order dated 05.05.2021 of this Court in Nirmani Engineers\n       and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. The Commissioner of CT&GST,\n       Odisha and Others, W.P.(C) No.15934 of 2021.13.    In the above premise, the following directions are, therefore,\n       issued:i.     The petitioner is permitted to file returns for the period prior\n              to the cancellation of registration, if such returns have not\n              already been filed, together with tax defaulted which has\n              not been paid prior to cancellation along with interest for\n              such belated payment of tax and statutory payments and fee\n              fixed for belated filing of returns for the defaulted period\n              under the provisions of the Act, within a period of sixty\n              days (60) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this\n              Judgment, if it has not been already paid.W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                                Page 68 of 70:: 69 ::ii.    It is made clear that such payment of tax/interest/penalty/\n              fine/fee etc. shall not be allowed to be made or adjusted\n              from and out of any Input Tax Credit which may be lying\n              unutilized or unclaimed in the hands of the petitioner.iii.   On payment of tax, interest, penalty and late fee, if any, and\n              uploading of returns, as conceded by both the parties, the\n              petitioner is at liberty to file the application for revocation\n              of cancellation of registration within a period of 7 days\n              therefrom along with petition for condonation of delay. In\n              such eventuality, the proper officer/registering authority/\n              competent authority shall consider the same favourably by\n              condoning the delay and revoke the cancellation of\n              registration.iv.    The opposite parties shall take suitable steps by instructing\n              GST Network, New Delhi or any other agency responsible\n              for maintaining the Web Portal to make suitable changes in\n              the architecture of the GST Web Portal to enable the\n              petitioner      to   file      his     returns   and   to     pay    the\n              tax/interest/penalty/fine/fee and it is to be ensured by the\n              department that there shall be no technical glitch during the\n              period specified herein.v.     The above exercise shall be completed by the opposite\n              parties within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of\n              receipt of a copy of this Judgment.vi.    The Authority concerned is at liberty to verify the veracity\n              of the claim(s) made in the returns so furnished and takeW.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                                  Page 69 of 70:: 70 ::appropriate steps in accordance with law after affording\n                              reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.14.         The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. Parties are to bear\n                  their respective costs. Since the main case has been decided, the\n                  pending Interlocutory Application, if any, also stands disposed off.(JASWANT SINGH)                                     (M.S. RAMAN)\n                        JUDGE                                             JUDGE\n\n\n\n\nAks   High Court of Orissa, Cuttack\n      October 13, 2022W.P.(C) No. 7728 of 2022                                                 Page 70 of 70