2022 (8) TMI 757 - HC - GST

Revocation of cancelled registration of petitioner - sufficient opportunity to furnish reply, not afforded to petitioner - time limit to approach proper officer in terms of Section 30 read with 23 of the Odisha Good and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT - It is required under Section 30(1) read with Rule 23(1) that an application for revocation of cancellation of registration in Form GST REG-21 is required to be submitted to the proper officer who has cancelled the same invoking Section 29. The application for revocation is required to be made within 30 days from the date of service of the order of cancellation of registration. Having conceded by both the parties, if the Petitioner files application for revocation of cancellation of registration within a period of 30 days from today, the proper officer shall consider the same in its proper perspective by condoning the delay and such consideration shall be subject to the Petitioner depositing the tax, interest, penalty and late fee from the date of default. In order to enable the Petitioner to deposit tax, interest and penalty along with late fee, the proper officer shall take steps to open the portal and also allow the Petitioner to file all its returns - the proper officer shall consider the application for revocation of cancellation of registration in accordance with law. Petition disposed off.

Issues:
1. Cancellation of GST registration certificate without sufficient opportunity for reply.
2. Invocation of Section 30 for revocation of cancellation of registration.
3. Compliance with statutory requirements for revocation.
4. Interpretation of Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
5. Relief granted by the Court in similar situations.

Analysis:

Cancellation of GST Registration Certificate:
The Petitioner challenged the cancellation of the Registration Certificate bearing GSTIN 21AHMPT7297F2ZU issued in favor of Harsal Taunk with the Trade name, Shree Hari Printers by the Additional CT & GST Officer, Angul Circle. The Petitioner alleged that there was a lack of opportunity to furnish a reply due to health issues, resulting in defaults in tax payments and responses to notices. The Petitioner sought direction from the Court to revoke the cancellation order under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Invocation of Section 30 for Revocation:
The Counsel for the Petitioner cited Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, which allows a registered person to apply for revocation of cancellation of registration within thirty days from the date of the cancellation order. The Counsel argued that the Petitioner is willing to deposit the required amounts and comply with statutory requirements for revocation. The Court examined the provisions of Section 30 and emphasized the need for timely application submission and compliance with tax payments and returns.

Compliance with Statutory Requirements:
The Addl. Standing Counsel for the Opposite Parties contended that unless the delay in approaching the proper officer for revocation is condoned and statutory obligations regarding tax, interest, penalty, and late fees are met, no relief should be granted. The Petitioner assured readiness to discharge liabilities by depositing the necessary amounts and filing all pending returns as per Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

Interpretation of Rule 23:
The Court analyzed Rule 23(1) of the OGST Rules, emphasizing the requirement for submitting an application for revocation of cancellation within thirty days of the cancellation order. The Rule mandates that returns must be furnished, taxes paid, and interest, penalty, and late fees cleared before applying for revocation. The Court clarified the timelines for filing returns in case of cancellation with retrospective effect.

Relief Granted in Similar Situations:
The Petitioner's Counsel referred to previous judgments where the Court had intervened in comparable cases and granted relief. The Court acknowledged these precedents and directed the proper officer to consider the Petitioner's application for revocation if filed within thirty days, subject to compliance with tax payments and return filings. The Court instructed the officer to facilitate the deposit of dues and reopening of the portal for filing returns.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition with directions for the Petitioner to apply for revocation within the specified timeline, ensuring compliance with statutory requirements. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely actions and adherence to tax obligations for the revocation process.

← Previous Next →