9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 1058 - HC - GSTCancellation of GST registration of petitioner - cancellation on the premise that the Petitioner has failed to file Goods and Services Tax monthly returns for a continuous period of six months - Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act - HELD THAT - In identical circumstances, this Court, in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others 2022 (2) TMI 933 - MADRAS HIGH COURT held that The respondents shall take suitable steps by instructing GST Network, New Delhi to make suitable changes in the architecture of the GST Web portal to allow these petitioners to file their returns and to pay the tax/penalty/fine. This Court feels 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.
Issues: Challenge to the cancellation of Registration Certificate due to failure to file Goods and Services Tax monthly returns for six months; Applicability of Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act; Delay in filing appeal due to health reasons; Comparison with previous court directions in similar cases.
Analysis: 1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the cancellation of the Registration Certificate based on the Petitioner's failure to file Goods and Services Tax monthly returns for a continuous period of six months, as per Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. The Petitioner contested this cancellation, citing reasons for being unaware of the situation due to health concerns, specifically a diagnosis of Hernia that necessitated treatment and prolonged bed rest. It was highlighted that the business operations were managed by staff during this period, with only a part-time Accountant handling statutory compliances, including GST returns. The Petitioner missed the appeal deadline due to being informed late about the cancellation by other taxpayers. 2. The Petitioner's counsel referred to a previous judgment by the Madras High Court in a similar case, Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner, where specific directions were issued. These directions included requirements for filing past returns, payment of outstanding taxes with interest, restrictions on utilizing unclaimed Input Tax Credit, scrutiny of Input Tax Credit utilization, cash payment of GST for subsequent periods, and the revival of registration upon compliance. The court found merit in applying similar directions to the present case, considering the circumstances and the Petitioner's health-related delay in responding to the cancellation. 3. The Respondent's Standing Counsel argued against disregarding the statutory limitations on appeal timelines, emphasizing the rejection of the Petitioner's appeal due to being time-barred. However, the Court, taking into account the equitable approach followed in previous judgments like Suguna Cutpiece Centre, decided to grant similar relief to the Petitioner. Consequently, the Court ordered the writ petition to be allowed on terms consistent with the directions outlined in the earlier judgment, leading to the revival of the Registration Certificate. No costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed in line with the decision. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the challenges faced by the Petitioner in responding to the cancellation of the Registration Certificate, considering health-related delays and the applicability of statutory provisions. By drawing parallels with previous court directions in similar cases, the Court provided equitable relief to the Petitioner, emphasizing the importance of compliance while also acknowledging extenuating circumstances.
|
