Order : 1. The present D.B. Civil Writ Petition has been preferred by the petitioner, inter alia, claiming the following reliefs: “ It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court would be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction to the Respondent– (i) To declare Section 107 (1) and (4) of the CGST and RGST Acts as unconstitutional; (ii) Alternatively, the Hon’ble Court may read down Section 107 (4) so as to ensure express application of the Limitation Act and ensure condonation of delay beyond the period of 30 days on sufficient grounds/reasons; (iii) To quash and set aside the show cause notice dated 18.10.2023 (Annexure–5) and order dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure–6) for cancellation of registration passed by Respondent No. 4 and GSTIN of the petitioner-firm, may kindly be restored enabling the petitioner to continue to its business; (iv) To quash and set aside the order dated 08.12.2024 and summary thereof in Form GST APL-04 dated 08.12.2024 (Annexure–8) passed by Respondent No. 5 rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the cancellation order dated 06.12.2024; (v) To declare the condition and restriction of the time limit for preferring an appeal beyond the period of three months with a grace period of only one month, as prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Acts, as ultra vires and against the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 19, 21 and 265 of the Constitution of India; (vi) To issue a writ, order or direction to the Appellate Authority to hear the matter on merits treating the appeal as having been filed within the period of limitation; (vii) To pass any other order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case so as to ensure the ends of justice.” 2. At the outset, it is noted that during the course of proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioner has expressly given up the challenge to the validity of Section 107 (1) and (4) of the CGST/RGST Acts. Accordingly, the adjudication of the present writ petition shall be confined to the remaining reliefs and shall be made accordingly. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of manufacturing marble slabs and is registered under the RGST/CGST Acts bearing GSTIN 08ADEPA00813E1ZC. Accordingly, the adjudication of the present writ petition shall be confined to the remaining reliefs and shall be made accordingly. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of manufacturing marble slabs and is registered under the RGST/CGST Acts bearing GSTIN 08ADEPA00813E1ZC. The petitioner had been regularly filing its returns up to July 2023. According to the petitioner, due to his medical condition from August 2023 onwards, he could not supervise the business operations, resulting in non-filing of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B for subsequent months. 3.1. On 18.10.2023, Respondent No. 4 issued a Show Cause Notice in Form GST REG-17 proposing cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration on the ground of non-filing of GSTR- 3B. The petitioner asserts that the said notice was not served in any of the modes under Section 169 of the RGST/CGST Acts except mere uploading on the GST Portal and that the notice was vague as it did not specify the continuous six-month period of default required under Section 29 (2)(c). 3.2. As no reply was submitted to the Show Cause Notice, Respondent No. 4 passed an order dated 06.12.2023 cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration with retrospective effect from 01.09.2023. The petitioner claims that he became aware of the cancellation only upon contacting his tax consultant after recovering from illness. 3.3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Acts on 24.09.2024. The Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 5), vide order dated 18.12.2024, dismissed the appeal as being time-barred beyond the maximum condonable period prescribed under (4). 3.4. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the Show Cause Notice, the cancellation order and the appellate order, as also assailing the constitutional validity of Section 107 (1) and (4) of the RGST/CGST Acts; however, during the course of proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioner expressly gave up the challenge to the validity of the said provisions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 06.12.2023 cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration is wholly arbitrary, perverse and without jurisdiction. It was urged that the Show Cause Notice dated 18.10.2023 itself was incompetent, as the pre-condition under Section 29 (2)(c) of the RGST/CGST Acts read with Rule 21(h) namely non-filing of returns under Section 39(1) for a continuous period of six months was not satisfied. It was urged that the Show Cause Notice dated 18.10.2023 itself was incompetent, as the pre-condition under Section 29 (2)(c) of the RGST/CGST Acts read with Rule 21(h) namely non-filing of returns under Section 39(1) for a continuous period of six months was not satisfied. The petitioner had duly furnished GSTR-3B returns up to July 2023 and, therefore, on the date of issuance of the SCN, no six-month continuous default existed. Consequently, initiation of cancellation proceedings was beyond jurisdiction. 4.1. It was further submitted that the Show Cause Notice was vague and cryptic, as it did not specify the period of alleged default nor disclose any foundation for invoking Section 29 (2)(c). Such a defective notice deprived the petitioner of meaningful opportunity to respond. Learned counsel submitted that the show cause notice and the cancellation order were never served upon the petitioner in any mode contemplated under Section 169 of the Act and had merely been uploaded on the GST Portal. In the petitioner’s medical condition, such portal-only communication did not constitute effective service, and the entire proceedings stood vitiated for want of due notice and violation of natural justice. 4.2. Learned counsel contended that the cancellation order was further vitiated on account of retrospective effect from 01.09.2023, although suspension was ordered only on 18.10.2023. No reasons were assigned for retrospective cancellation, rendering the action arbitrary and unsupported by any statutory justification. It was also urged that the order dated 06.12.2023 was passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing as mandated under Section 75(4) of the Act. 4.3. Assailing the appellate order dated 18.12.2024, learned counsel submitted that the appeal was dismissed on a hyper- technical ground of limitation without considering the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay. It was argued that the delay occurred solely due to the petitioner’s medical ailment, Lumbosacral Radiculopathy, which incapacitated him from attending business affairs. Once his condition improved, the appeal was filed at the earliest. The appellate authority failed to consider the bona fide explanation supported by medical documents and rejected the appeal mechanically, without adverting to the circumstances or the severe civil consequences involved. 4.4. It was contended that rejection of the appeal on the ground of limitation had the effect of depriving the petitioner of the right to carry on business and livelihood protected under Articles 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution. 4.4. It was contended that rejection of the appeal on the ground of limitation had the effect of depriving the petitioner of the right to carry on business and livelihood protected under Articles 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution. Reliance was placed upon decisions of this Court in Poonamchand Saran v. Union of India , Kanika Vishnoi v. Union of India (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14521/2022 Order dated 29.09.2022) , as well as on the judgment of the Madras High Court in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St.) (GST), Salem 2022 (W.P. Nos. 25048, 25877 and 14508 of 2021 order dated 31.01.2022) , wherein delays in filing appeals against GST cancellation orders were condoned and registration was restored to avoid deprivation of livelihood. 4.5. Learned counsel further submitted that this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, is not bound by the outer limit prescribed in Section 107 (4) and can direct the appellate authority to consider the appeal on merits in the interest of justice, particularly where rigid application of limitation would result in civil death of an ongoing business. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, CGST (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14658 of 2024 decided on 09.09.2024) , where delay was condoned due to illness in the family, demonstrating that genuine circumstances ought to receive liberal consideration. 4.6. It was urged that the petitioner’s situation stands on even firmer footing, as the delay was caused by his own medical incapacity. The petitioner, being a genuine businessman continuously conducting lawful activity, should not suffer irreversible consequences due to technicalities. Learned counsel submitted that the actions of the respondents have caused grave and irreparable injury and that restoration of registration is necessary not only to enable continuation of business but also to ensure future tax compliance and revenue to the State. 4.7. On these submissions, learned counsel prayed that the cancellation orders as well as the appellate order be quashed and the petitioner’s GST registration be restored, or in the alternative, the appellate authority be directed to decide the appeal on merits after condoning the delay. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. It was submitted that the petitioner was issued a Show Cause Notice on 18.10.2023 under Rule 22(1) read with Rule 21A(2A) of the RGST/CGST Rules for non-filing of GSTR- 3B for the month of August 2023. Despite due service of the notice in accordance with Section 169 of the Act, the petitioner failed to submit any reply or to file the overdue return. Consequently, the competent authority was justified in cancelling the petitioner’s registration. 5.1. It was further submitted that the petitioner’s plea of medical incapacity is an afterthought and contrary to the records, which show that the petitioner-firm continued business operations during the relevant period. The cancellation order was passed only after the petitioner failed to respond to the show cause notice despite adequate opportunity. 5.2. Learned Additional Advocate General contended that even the appellate remedy under Section 107 was not availed within time. The petitioner admittedly filed the appeal on 24.09.2024, long after expiry of the statutory period of three months prescribed under (1) and even beyond the further condonable period of one month under (4). It was urged that the Appellate Authority rightly dismissed the appeal as time-barred, as it had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal filed beyond the statutory outer limit. 5.3. It was argued that the petitioner cannot now take advantage of his own inaction and seek to reopen proceedings by alleging violation of natural justice, especially when the record establishes valid service of notice and deliberate non-participation in the proceedings. The petitioner was afforded more than sufficient time to respond to the notice as well as to prefer an appeal, yet no action was taken within the statutory period. 5.4. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the statutory framework under Section 107 is consistent with several fiscal enactments, such as Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, which also provide a fixed period for filing an appeal with a limited condonable extension, beyond which delay cannot be condoned and Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded. The scheme of is in consonance with these settled legislative patterns. 5.5. The scheme of is in consonance with these settled legislative patterns. 5.5. It was urged that the right of appeal is not an inherent or fundamental right but a statutory creation, and the legislature is competent to prescribe conditions, including rigid timelines. When the statute expressly excludes condonation beyond one month, neither the Appellate Authority nor this Court, while exercising judicial review, can rewrite the legislative mandate or enlarge the limitation period. 5.6. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the challenge to the effectiveness of service under Section 169 is unfounded, as the show cause notice, cancellation order and all communications were duly uploaded on the common portal and also sent to the registered e-mail ID and mobile number. The petitioner has not shown any compelling cause for non-compliance or for delay in filing the appeal. 5.7. It was also submitted that the petitioner’s abandonment of the vires challenge further narrows the scope of the petition, and the only surviving issue relates to cancellation on account of admitted non-filing of returns and belated appeal, both of which stand concluded against the petitioner under the statutory mechanism. 5.8. On these submissions, learned Additional Advocate General prayed that the writ petition be dismissed with costs. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record. 7. This Court observes that, in view of paragraph 2 above, the scope of the present writ petition stands confined to the challenge to the show cause notice dated 18.10.2023, the cancellation order dated 06.12.2023, the appellate order dated 18.12.2024 and the consequential prayer for restoration of the petitioner’s GST registration and/or consideration of his statutory appeal on merits. The challenge to the vires of Section 107 (1) and 107(4) of the CGST/RGST Acts does not survive for adjudication. 8. This Court observes that the cancellation of GST registration entails serious civil consequences, inasmuch as it disables a registered person from carrying on taxable business in the ordinary course and, in practical terms, affects the right to livelihood of the assessee and those dependent on such business activity. In such circumstances, the approach of the authorities, particularly while dealing with appeals against cancellation orders, is expected to be fair, reasonable and not unduly technical. 8.1. In such circumstances, the approach of the authorities, particularly while dealing with appeals against cancellation orders, is expected to be fair, reasonable and not unduly technical. 8.1. At this stage, reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in, Pooja Construction Company v. Union of India & Ors. , ( D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13263/2025 decided on 08.10.2025) , wherein the Court, in identical circumstances involving dismissal of appeal solely on the ground of limitation, held as under: “7. It is a matter of record that GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled with effect from 14.03.2024 which is virtually a civil death thereby bringing the business operations of the petitioner at a stand still. As per the petitioner, its accountant, who was entrusted with the responsibility to file the returns and to ensure all the legal and statutory compliances, has failed to perform his duty and on account of failure to file returns continuously for 6 months, the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled. The reasons mentioned in the petition for non-compliance of the relevant provisions of the Act within the prescribed time, in the considered opinion of this Court, appears to be genuine. 8. This Court in the above relied upon judgments while allowing the writ petitions, have issued directions to entertain the appeal on merits. 9. For the foregoing reasons and taking benefits of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, we allow the present writ petition and accordingly, set aside the order dated 26.05.2025 (Annex.5) passed by the appellate authority. The appellate authority is directed to consider and decide the appeal of the petitioner on its own merits, in accordance with law, subject to the petitioner firm depositing late fees, penalty and other statutory deposits for entertaining the appeal, as admissible.” 8.2. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case, where cancellation has resulted in cessation of business activity and the statutory appeal has been rejected solely on limitation without consideration of the explanation tendered by the petitioner. 9. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case, where cancellation has resulted in cessation of business activity and the statutory appeal has been rejected solely on limitation without consideration of the explanation tendered by the petitioner. 9. This Court observes that the Appellate Authority, while dismissing the petitioner’s appeal as time-barred, has proceeded solely on computation of limitation under Section 107 (1) and 107(4) of the CGST/RGST Acts and has not adverted to, much less dealt with, the petitioner’s explanation for delay, the nature of the ailment pleaded, or the grave consequences of non-condonation in the facts of the case. The impugned appellate order is, thus, ex facie cryptic and non-speaking on these material aspects. 10. This Court finds that, although the Appellate Authority is bound by the outer limit prescribed in Section 107 (4) and cannot, in exercise of its own powers, condone delay beyond the statutory cap, the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 is of a different and higher character. In an appropriate case, where the explanation for delay is plausible and the consequences of non-condonation are disproportionate and harsh, this Court is not precluded from issuing directions so as to ensure that the matter is considered on merits, notwithstanding the statutory bar, particularly when grave prejudice to livelihood and business is demonstrated. 11. This Court observes that the petitioner has, on oath, asserted that he came to know of the cancellation of registration only upon contacting his tax consultant after recovery from illness and that the appeal was then filed without further delay on 24.09.2024. It is also not in dispute that the delay is of a finite and determinable period and that the petitioner is otherwise willing to comply with all statutory obligations, including filing of pending returns and payment of dues, if any, determined in accordance with law. 12. This Court finds that, in the facts peculiar to the present case, the delay in filing the appeal stands sufficiently explained on a prima facie basis by reference to the petitioner’s medical condition and subsequent steps taken upon acquiring knowledge of cancellation. The respondents have not pointed out any serious prejudice to revenue that would ensue merely by permitting the appeal to be heard on merits. The respondents have not pointed out any serious prejudice to revenue that would ensue merely by permitting the appeal to be heard on merits. On the contrary, continuation of business and restoration of registration, subject to final outcome, would facilitate future tax compliance and collection. 13. This Court observes that both sides have raised rival contentions on the legality of the Show Cause Notice dated 18.10.2023, the alleged non-compliance with Section 169 as regards service, the validity of retrospective cancellation from 01.09.2023, and the alleged violation of Section 75(4) and principles of natural justice. These are issues which are integrally connected with the merits of the cancellation proceedings and are best examined by the statutory Appellate Authority in the first instance, upon a full and fair hearing to both parties. 14. This Court finds that it would neither be appropriate nor necessary, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, to conclusively adjudicate upon the merits of the cancellation and the show cause notice at this stage, when the statutory appeal has been rejected solely on limitation and has not yet been considered on merits. Interference in writ jurisdiction is, therefore, warranted primarily to the extent of correcting the denial of an effective appellate remedy, rather than substituting this Court’s view on factual and legal issues that lie within the province of the Appellate Authority. 15. This Court observes that, in similar matters concerning cancellation of GST registrations, this Court and other High Courts have, in the interest of justice and to avoid civil death of genuine businesses, directed consideration of delayed appeals on merits by excluding the bar of limitation, where the explanation for delay and the hardship occasioned thereby justified such an equitable course. The facts of the present case, involving medical incapacity pleaded by the proprietor of a running firm, justify adoption of a similar remedial approach. 16. This Court finds, therefore, that the refusal of the Appellate Authority to entertain the petitioner’s appeal solely on the ground of limitation, without examining the explanation for delay and without affording the petitioner an opportunity of contesting the merits of cancellation, has resulted in denial of a substantive statutory remedy and, in turn, threatens to irreversibly affect the petitioner’s right to carry on business and livelihood. In the totality of circumstances, this Court is persuaded to exercise its writ jurisdiction to reopen the appellate remedy. 17. In the totality of circumstances, this Court is persuaded to exercise its writ jurisdiction to reopen the appellate remedy. 17. This Court observes that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the appellate order dated 18.12.2024 is set aside and the appeal filed by the petitioner is restored to the file of the Appellate Authority, with a specific direction that the appeal shall be heard and decided on merits, without being dismissed on the ground of limitation and without being influenced by the earlier order of dismissal. All contentions of both parties on the merits of the Show Cause Notice, the cancellation order and the issue of service, including reliance on case-law, shall remain open for consideration by the Appellate Authority. 18. This Court finds it appropriate to clarify that this Court has not expressed any concluded opinion on the legality or correctness of the Show Cause Notice dated 18.10.2023 or the cancellation order dated 06.12.2023. Any observations herein are only for the limited purpose of examining the justification for reopening the appellate remedy and shall not prejudice the adjudication by the Appellate Authority, which shall decide the matter independently in accordance with law. 19. This Court observes that the Appellate Authority shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to both sides, permit the petitioner to place all relevant documents and submissions, and thereafter pass a reasoned order dealing with the rival contentions, preferably within a stipulated period to avoid further uncertainty for either party. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court deems it appropriate to exercise its writ jurisdiction to reopen the petitioner’s statutory appellate remedy. Accordingly, the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 5) in Form GST APL-04 is hereby quashed and set aside. 21. The appeal filed by the petitioner on 24.09.2024 under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Acts shall stand restored to the file of the Appellate Authority, to be heard and decided on merits, without being dismissed on the ground of limitation and without being influenced by the earlier order of dismissal. 22. The Appellate Authority shall afford due opportunity of hearing to both parties, permit filing of all relevant documents/material, and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with all contentions relating to the Show Cause Notice dated 18.10.2023, cancellation order dated 06.12.2023, and all ancillary issues. 23. 22. The Appellate Authority shall afford due opportunity of hearing to both parties, permit filing of all relevant documents/material, and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with all contentions relating to the Show Cause Notice dated 18.10.2023, cancellation order dated 06.12.2023, and all ancillary issues. 23. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.