2022 (11) TMI 211 - HC - GST

Revocation of cancellation of petitioners GSTN registration - the case of Respondent is that it is not open to the appellate authority to pass any orders disregarding the limitations prescribed therein - HELD THAT - There is a consistent view taken in these matters. The revenue has not challenged any of such orders of this Court and hence the orders have attained finality. In view of the fact that this Court has been consistently following the directions issued in the case of TVL. SUGUNA CUTPIECE CENTER VERSUS THE APPELLATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) (GST) , THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CIRCLE) , SALEM BAZAAR 2022 (2) TMI 933 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where it was held that The petitioners are directed to file their returns for the period prior to the cancellation of registration, if such returns have not been already filed, together with tax defaulted which has not been paid prior to cancellation along with interest for such belated payment of tax and fine and fee fixed for belated filing of returns for the defaulted period under the provisions of the Act, within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it has not been already paid. The Revenue/Department has also accepted the said view as evident from the fact that no appeal has been filed in any of the matters, this Court intends to follow the above order of this Court - this Court is of the considered opinion that the benefit extended by this Court in the earlier orders referred to in Suguna Cutpiece Centre's case may be extended to the Petitioner. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the cancellation of GSTN registration and the applicability of the period of limitation.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the Reference No.ZA3303220183072, dated 04.03.2022, for the cancellation of the GSTN registration No.33AAMFB9051E1ZL. The petitioner claimed ignorance of the cancellation until informed by another establishment. The petitioner approached the respondents to restore the registration, but the second respondent cited the expiry of the limitation period as the reason for the cancellation. The petitioner's counsel argued that a similar situation was addressed in a previous case, Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner, where specific directions were issued by the court. These directions included filing returns for the period prior to cancellation, payment of outstanding taxes, fines, and fees, restrictions on utilizing Input Tax Credit, and the revival of registration upon compliance. The court noted that the Revenue had not challenged previous orders following the same directions, indicating acceptance of the court's view. Consequently, the court decided to extend the benefits granted in previous cases to the petitioner.

The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent contended that the appellate authority must adhere to the prescribed limitations, and any orders passed beyond the limitation period are legally sustainable. The court acknowledged a consistent approach in similar cases and the finality of previous orders due to the Revenue not appealing against them. Given the court's adherence to the directions issued in the Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece case and the Revenue's acceptance of the same, the court decided to grant the petitioner the benefits outlined in the earlier orders. Accordingly, the court ordered the writ petition to be allowed on the same terms as mentioned in the previous case, with no costs incurred. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a consequence of the judgment.