2021 (1) TMI 705 - HC - GST

Seeking Restoration of Cancelled GST registration of petitioner - contention is that there can be no manual restoration of the GST registration and, therefore, the writ petitioner is liable to be dismissed - HELD THAT - The contention that there is no provision of restoration of a GST registration, once it has been cancelled borders on the absurd. In case, no provision for its restoration has been made in the software, the same is not the fault of the petitioner and it is for the department and the respondents to make provisions for the same in the software and on the GST Portal. Merely because such provision has not been made, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer and non compliance of an appellate order, passed by a competent appellate authority cannot be accepted or permitted on the plea raised in the counter affidavit or during the course of arguments. The respondents are directed to restore petitioner's GST registration on the GST Portal, forthwith not later than ten days from the date a copy of this order is filed before them - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to file monthly returns leading to cancellation of GST registration.
2. Non-implementation of appellate order restoring GST registration on the GST Portal.
3. Dispute regarding manual restoration of GST registration and requirement of revocation application.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the petitioner, a registered society, failing to file monthly returns (GSTR-3B) for several months, resulting in the cancellation of their GST registration. A show cause notice was issued, and upon non-compliance, the registration was cancelled. However, the appellate authority later set aside this cancellation order and restored the petitioner's GST registration with effect from a specific date.

2. The petitioner, aggrieved by the non-implementation of the appellate order on the GST Portal, sought relief through a writ petition. The petitioner requested the restoration of the registration certificate and active status on the portal, as directed by the appellate authority. The respondents initially argued about the responsibility for restoration, suggesting the petitioner should reapply online for registration.

3. The respondents contended that manual restoration of GST registration was not possible, and the petitioner should have filed a revocation application in the prescribed form. They highlighted the requirements under Rule 23(1) of the GST Act, emphasizing the need for filing old returns, tax details, and interest or penalties along with the revocation application. The respondents argued that failure to comply with these requirements warranted dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Despite the arguments presented by the respondents, the Court found that the appellate order restoring the petitioner's GST registration was legal and within jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the respondents could not refuse to comply with a judicial order. The Court criticized the contention that there was no provision for restoration of GST registration, stating that it would be a travesty of justice. The Court held that the lack of a provision in the software was not the petitioner's fault, and the authorities were responsible for making necessary provisions on the GST Portal.

5. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to restore the petitioner's GST registration on the GST Portal within ten days of the order. The Court instructed all respondents to cooperate to ensure compliance with the order, emphasizing the importance of upholding judicial decisions and ensuring justice for the petitioner.