9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 505 - Commissioner - GSTRevocation of cancellation of registration - non filing of returns for a continuous period of six months - non submission of reply to the SCN within the time specified therein - HELD THAT - The adjudicating authority has cancelled their registration due to non filing of GSTR-3B returns for the period Ist March-2019 to till date i.e. 10.06.2020 and effective date of cancellation of registration is 10.06.2020 whereas in the second proviso of Notification No.52/2020-Central Tax dated 24th June 2020 it is clearly stated that where the total amount of central tax payable in the said return is nil, the total amount of late fee payable for a tax period, under section 47 of the said Act shall stand waived for the registered person who failed to furnish the return in FORM GSTR-3B for the period of July, 2017 to January, 2020. In the instant case, the appellant has filed his GSTR-1 and GSTR 3B on 30.09.2020. Further, on going through the records, it is observed that the appellant has not filed return upto June-2020 whereas, the benefit of notification with regard to waiver of late fee has been given in the said notification upto January-2020 only. In view of this facts, it is found that the appellant did not deposited late fee for the period January-2020 onwards. The appellant has not been complied with the proviso of the Rule 23 of CGST Rules, 2017. The cancellation of registration of appellant may not be considered for revocation - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
Cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns and rejection of revocation application. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns for six months, and the rejection of the revocation application. The appellant argued that the cancellation was erroneous and violated principles of natural justice. They claimed that they were preoccupied with another business, had no business transactions, and had filed for revocation within the extended time limit. The appellant also highlighted the impact of late fees and the COVID-19 pandemic on their situation. During the virtual hearing, the authorized representative reiterated these grounds and requested revocation to start the business. The Commissioner reviewed all submissions and proceeded to decide the appeal. The Commissioner noted that the registration was cancelled due to non-filing of returns and failure to respond to a show cause notice. The appellant contended that they had not started any business activities until the cancellation and had filed all pending returns by a specific date. However, the relevant provisions under Rule 23 of the CGST Rules state that returns must be filed and any tax liabilities paid before applying for revocation. The Commissioner also referred to a circular clarifying the requirements for revocation in cases of cancellation due to non-filing of returns. The Commissioner further referenced a notification regarding the waiver of late fees up to a certain period, which the appellant did not comply with. Despite the appellant filing returns after the specified period, it was found that late fees were not paid for the relevant period. As a result, the Commissioner concluded that the appellant did not meet the requirements for revocation as per the CGST Rules. Therefore, the appeal was rejected, and the cancellation of registration was upheld. In conclusion, the Commissioner dismissed the appeal based on the appellant's failure to comply with the provisions for revocation of registration following the cancellation due to non-filing of returns. The decision was made considering the specific requirements outlined in the CGST Rules and the lack of adherence to the waiver of late fees for the relevant period.
|
