Cancelled GST registration can be restored upon fulfilment of conditions

[CA Bimal Jain]

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the matter of PITCHAIAH VENKATESHPRUMAL VERSUS SUPERINTENDENT OF CGST & C. EXCISE, MADURAI - 2023 (1) TMI 1094 - MADRAS HIGH COURT has held that cancellation of Goods and Service Tax (“GST”) Registration due to non-filing of returns can be revoked if the assessee files the pending returns and pays the taxes, fines, interest along with fee due.

Facts:

Mr Pitchaiah Venkateshprumal (“the Petitioner”) filed a writ petition challenging the order of cancellation of its GST Registration of Petitioner’s Company, which was cancelled on the ground that the Petitioner did not file the GST returns for a consecutive period of six months. The Petitioner on the other hand contended that he was unaware of the cancellation of the GST Registration, as the Proprietor of the Petitioner’s Company was diagnosed with medical ailments and the business was carried out by the staffs. Furthermore, a part-time Accountant was taking care of the filing of the GST returns. The Petitioner came to know of the cancellation of the GST Registration after being informed by the other end of taxpayers. Therefore, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority but the same  was rejected on the ground that it was beyond the period of limitation.

Issue:

Whether the order of cancellation of the GST Registration of the Petitioner’s Company can be revoked?

Held:

The Hon’ble Madras High Court held as under:

• Relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the matter 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 wherein the Court had:

• Allowed Petitioners to file their returns and pay any taxes, interests, fines and fees due before the cancellation of the Registration within 45 days with the further direction that the Petitioners would not be allowed to use any unused Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) to pay the amounts.
• Petitioners would be responsible for paying the GST and filing returns for the period consequent to the cancellation of registration and would be allowed to use any earned IITC only after being scrutinized and approved by the competent authority.
• The registration would be revived only upon payment of taxes and penalty, and uploading of returns.

• The Court extended the benefit given to the Petitioner in the case of Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece v. the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others (Supra) to the Petitioner in the present case provided same conditions are being followed.

(Author can be reached at [email protected])