9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 1094 - HC - GSTCancellation of the Registration Certificate of petitioner - failure to file Goods and Services Tax monthly returns for a continuous period of six months - HELD THAT - In identical circumstances, this Court, 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 had 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. This Court has been consistently following the directions issued in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others and 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 - Petition ordered.
Issues:
Challenge to the cancellation of Registration Certificate due to failure to file GST returns for six months. Appeal rejected on the ground of limitation. Application of directions issued in previous cases to the current situation. Analysis: The Writ Petition challenges the cancellation of the Registration Certificate based on the Petitioner's failure to file Goods and Services Tax monthly returns for six consecutive months, leading to the cancellation under Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Petitioner, represented by counsel, argued that the cancellation was unknown due to the Proprietor's medical condition, which necessitated treatment and bed rest, leaving only a part-time Accountant responsible for statutory compliances. Upon learning of the cancellation from other taxpayers, the Petitioner appealed, but it was rejected as being beyond the limitation period. Both the Petitioner and Respondents acknowledged a previous case where the Court issued specific directions in similar circumstances. The Court's directions in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece set conditions for petitioners to rectify the situation by filing returns, paying defaulted taxes with interest, and complying with fines and fees within a specified timeframe. The Court also emphasized restrictions on utilizing Input Tax Credit and the need for scrutiny and approval before its utilization. Additionally, the Court mandated the payment of GST in cash for subsequent periods post-cancellation. Given the consistent application of the directions from the Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece case in subsequent decisions, the Court decided to extend the same benefit to the current Petitioner. The Court highlighted that since the Revenue Department did not appeal these directions in other cases, it intends to follow the established precedent. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the Petitioner, ordering the Writ Petition to be granted on the same terms as outlined in the Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece case, without imposing any costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions were also closed in line with this decision.
|
