9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 190 - HC - GSTRevocation of cancellation of registration of petitioner - non-payment of GST dues - HELD THAT - It is made clear that upon the deposit of the said amount of ₹ 90,09,874/-, the registration of the petitioner under CGST Act read with MGST Act, which is withdrawn shall stand restored without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the revenue. The revenue would be at liberty to decide the application for restoration of the registration of the petitioner upon deposit of the said amount of ₹ 90,09,874/- and shall pass an order within three months from the date of such deposit of the amount. The order that would be passed, shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week from the date of passing of such order. Insofar as the communication dated 22nd December, 2021 from the Superintendent, Central GST, Range-V, Div-IV, Sangli to the petitioner stating that the total GST outstanding liability of the petitioner is in the sum of ₹ 3,65,14,056/- is concerned, it is not in dispute that the investigation against the petitioner is still pending - no views provided on the merits of the said communication dated 22nd December, 2021 at this stage. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Revocation of cancellation of registration under the CGST Act and MGST Act. 2. Deposit of balance tax dues by the petitioner. 3. Pending investigation against the petitioner regarding outstanding GST liability. 4. Correctness of the impugned order de-activating the petitioner's registration. 5. Consequences if the petitioner fails to deposit the required amount. Analysis: 1. The High Court considered the issue of revocation of cancellation of registration under the CGST Act and MGST Act. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit a balance amount of ?90,09,874 towards GST dues for the registration to be restored. The revenue was granted the liberty to decide on the restoration application within three months of the deposit, with communication of the order to the petitioner within one week. 2. The Court addressed the petitioner's commitment to deposit the required amount within two weeks, as stated by the petitioner's counsel. The revenue informed the petitioner about the portal being open for depositing the balance tax dues. The petitioner agreed to deposit the amount on the portal within the specified time frame, leading to the restoration of registration upon successful deposit. 3. Regarding the pending investigation against the petitioner and the outstanding GST liability of ?3,65,14,056, the Court refrained from expressing any views on the merits of the communication dated 22nd December, 2021. The investigation against the petitioner remained ongoing, and the Court did not delve into the specifics at that stage. 4. The Court clarified that it did not assess the correctness of the impugned order de-activating the petitioner's registration under the CGST Act and MGST Act. The focus of the judgment was primarily on the deposit of the specified amount for restoration, without delving into the validity of the original de-activation order. 5. In case the petitioner failed to deposit the required amount within the specified time frame, the Court ruled that the impugned order rejecting the revocation of registration would stand restored. The consequences of non-compliance were clearly outlined, emphasizing the importance of timely deposit for the resolution of the registration status. Overall, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issues related to the revocation of registration, deposit of tax dues, ongoing investigation, and the consequences of non-compliance, ensuring clarity on the steps to be taken by the parties involved.
|
