9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 452 - Commissioner - GSTRevocation of cancellation of registration - rejection due to non-submission of reply to the show cause notice dated 23-1-2020 within the time specified therein - HELD THAT - The adjudicating authority has cancelled the registration of the appellant due to non-payment of GST and also rejected the application for revocation of cancellation of registration due to non-submission of reply to the show cause notice dated 23-1-2020 within the specified period. The appellant has submitted that they could not attend the hearing due to personal circumstances before the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority has reported that the present status of GSTIN is active. Central Board of Indirect Taxes Customs, New Delhi has clarified the issue vide Circular No. 99/18/2019-GST, dated 23-4-2019 that in terms of the second proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 23 of the said Rules, all returns required to be furnished in respect of the period from the date of order of cancellation till the date of order of revocation of cancellation of registration have to be furnished within a period of thirty days from the date of the order of revocation. The appellant was required to follow the procedure as prescribed under Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 as clarified vide Circular No. No. 99/18/2019-GST, dated 23-4-2019 - Since, the jurisdictional authority has revoked the said registration and is active, the appeal has becomes infructuous and accordingly rejected.
Issues:
Revocation of GST registration due to non-payment of GST and non-submission of reply to show cause notice. Appellant's request for restoration of registration. Appellant's failure to attend the personal hearing. Applicability of Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017. Clarification by Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, New Delhi. Infructuous appeal due to active registration. Revocation of GST Registration: The case involved the cancellation of GST registration (GSTIN 08AXSPC8075A1ZD) of the appellant due to non-payment of GST and rejection of the application for revocation because of non-submission of a reply to the show cause notice within the specified period. The appellant sought restoration of registration, claiming inability to attend the hearing due to personal circumstances. The adjudicating authority reported the current active status of the GSTIN. Appellant's Request for Restoration: The appellant filed an appeal against the cancellation of registration and requested restoration. Despite the scheduled personal hearing, the appellant did not attend, leading to a report being sought from the adjudicating authority, which confirmed the active status of the GSTIN. The appellant's submission highlighted their inability to participate in the hearing due to personal reasons. Applicability of Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017: The Commissioner (Appeals) analyzed Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017, which outlines the process for revocation of cancellation of registration. The rule specifies conditions for filing an application for revocation, including the necessity of furnishing returns and paying due amounts. The rule also mandates the submission of all pending returns within a specified period in case of cancellation with retrospective effect. Clarification by Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs: The Commissioner referred to Circular No. 99/18/2019-GST issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, New Delhi. The circular emphasized the requirements for revocation of cancellation of registration, particularly in cases where registration was canceled due to failure to furnish returns. It highlighted the need to comply with the prescribed procedure under Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017. Infructuous Appeal Due to Active Registration: Considering that the jurisdictional authority had already revoked and reinstated the registration, making it active, the Commissioner deemed the appeal as infructuous and subsequently rejected it. The active status of the registration rendered the appeal unnecessary, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's request for restoration. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues surrounding the cancellation and restoration of GST registration, emphasizing compliance with statutory provisions, procedural requirements, and clarifications provided by relevant authorities. The decision to reject the appeal was based on the active status of the registration following revocation by the jurisdictional authority, rendering the appeal moot.
|
