2023 (8) TMI 889 - HC - GST

Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - appeal rejected on the ground that the request for revocation was not filed within the statutory limitation of 90 (30 60) days - HELD THAT - Reliance placed upon the decision of the Principal Bench of this Court in TVL. SUGUNA CUTPIECE CENTER VERSUS THE APPELLATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) (GST) , THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CIRCLE) , SALEM BAZAAR. 2022 (2) TMI 933 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , wherein, it was held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners out of the Goods and Services Tax regime, as such assessee would still continue to do business and supply goods and services. Since the issue involved in this writ petition is similar, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the guidelines provided in the order in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case include the cancellation of the petitioner's GST Registration, the rejection of the appeal for revocation, and the interpretation of the GST enactments in allowing the petitioner to revive their registration.

Cancellation of GST Registration:
The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing Siddha medicines, had their GST Registration cancelled due to the failure of their part-time Accountant to file GST monthly returns for over 6 months. The cancellation was effective from 20.05.2022. Despite the petitioner's efforts to rectify the situation by filing returns and paying dues, their appeal for revocation was rejected on the grounds of not filing within the statutory limitation of 90 days. The petitioner then approached the High Court to challenge the cancellation.

Legal Interpretation and Relief Granted:
The Court considered the decision in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner, which highlighted the importance of allowing entities to revive their registration under the GST regime. The Court emphasized the need to integrate such entities back into the mainstream to ensure tax compliance and prevent unintended privileges. The judgment cited various provisions of the GST enactments and rules, emphasizing the facilitation rather than debarring of assesses from returning to the GST fold. The Court exercised its power under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the impugned orders and grant relief to the petitioners, subject to specific conditions outlined in the judgment. These conditions included filing past returns, paying outstanding dues, and adhering to specified procedures to ensure compliance with GST regulations.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the writ petition in favor of the petitioner, following the guidelines provided in the referenced case law. The Court's decision aimed to uphold the principles of justice, facilitate legitimate trade and commerce, and ensure compliance with GST regulations. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.