9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 933 - HC - GSTCondonation of delay in filing appeal - only ground on which the impugned order has been passed is that the appeal was filed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 117 of the TNGST Act, 2017 - Cancellation of GST Registrations - returns not filed for a continuous period of 6 months - Section 29 of the TNGST Act, 2017 r/w Rule 22 of TNGST Rules - HELD THAT - As original or as appellate authority exercising power under the respective enactments, quasi judicial officers were bound by the provisions of the Act and the limitation under it, they have acted in accordane with law. They cannot look beyond the limitations prescribed under provisions of the Act. Therefore, no fault can be attributed to their action - Under these circumstances, no fault can be attributed to the impugned orders passed by the Appellate Commissioner inasmuch as they cannot exercise jurisdiction beyond the provisions of the Act and are bound to Act in accordance of the provisions of the Act. At the same time, it is found that there are overwhelming reasons for granting reliefs to these petitioners to restore their registration. Sub Section (2) to Section 29 deals with a situation where, a proper officer may cancel the registration of a person from such date, including a retroprospective date, as he may deem such. All the cases under consideration fall under situation under Sub Clause (2)(c) i.e where a registered person other than the person specified in Clause (b) has failed to furnish returns for a continuous period of 6 months - All these petitioners were issued with a proper notice as is contemplated under the aforesaid provision. The orders were also passed after giving petitioners sufficient opportunity of being heard. Majority of the petitioners failed to respond notices issued by the respondent State Tax Officer proposing the cancellation of the registration of the respective petitioners. The time for filing appropriate application for revoking the cancellation of registration was extended either from date of service of the said cancellation order or 31.08.2020 which was later - all these petitioners whose registration had been cancelled prior to 12.06.2020 were given a fresh opportunity to file an application for revocation of cancellation of registration in terms of the Central Goods and Services Tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2020 vide Order No.01/2020-Central Tax, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, dated 25.06.2020. However, none of the petitioners opted to exercise the privilege. The provisions of the GST Enactments and the Rules made there under read with various clarifications issued by the Central Government pursuant to the decision of the GST Council and the Notification issued thereunder the respective enactments also make it clear, intention is to only facilitate and not to debar and de-recognised assesses from coming back into the GST fold. Thus, the intention of the Government has been to allow the persons like the petitioners to file a fresh application and to process the application for revocation of the cancellation of registration by the officers - no useful purpose will be served by keeping these petitioners out of the bounds of GST regime under the respective GST enactments other than to allow further leakage of the revenue and to isolate these petitioners from the main stream contrary to the objects of the respective GST enactments. Since, no useful will be served by not allowing persons like the petitioners to revive their registration and integrate them back into the main stream, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and with few safeguards - these petitioners deserve a chance and therefore should be allowed to revive their registration so that they can proceed to regularize the defaults. The authorities acting under the Act may impose penalty with the gravity of lapses committed by these petitioners by issuing notice. If required, the Central Government and the State Government may also suitably amend the Rules to levy penalty so that it acts as a deterrent on others from adopting casual approach. The petitioners are directed to file their returns for the period prior to the cancellation of registration, if such returns have not been already filed, together with tax defaulted which has not been paid prior to cancellation along with interest for such belated payment of tax and fine and fee fixed for belated filing of returns for the defaulted period under the provisions of the Act, within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it has not been already paid - petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the cancellation of GST Registrations under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. Rejection of appeals against the order of cancellation of GST registration due to being time-barred. 3. Rejection of applications for revocation of cancellation of GST Registration. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Challenge to the cancellation of GST Registrations The petitioners challenged the cancellation of their GST registrations on various grounds, including the failure to file returns for a continuous period of six months. The court noted that the respondents had issued Show Cause Notices before canceling the registrations. The court emphasized that the cancellation orders were passed following due process, including providing the petitioners with an opportunity to be heard. The petitioners had the option to file an application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the GST Acts within 30 days from the date of service of the cancellation order. However, many petitioners failed to avail this opportunity. Issue 2: Rejection of appeals against the order of cancellation of GST registration due to being time-barred The court observed that several petitioners filed appeals against the cancellation orders beyond the statutory period of limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the GST Acts. The appeals were rightly rejected as they were filed beyond the condonable period. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and Others, (2008) 3 SCC 70, which held that statutory appeals filed beyond the statutory period for condonation of delay cannot be condoned. The court acknowledged that the appellate authorities acted in accordance with the law and could not exercise jurisdiction beyond the provisions of the Act. Issue 3: Rejection of applications for revocation of cancellation of GST Registration The court noted that some petitioners filed applications for revocation of cancellation of registration, which were rejected by the original authorities. The court highlighted the various notifications and circulars issued by the Central Government to address the difficulties faced by taxpayers due to the Covid-19 pandemic. These included extensions of time for filing applications for revocation of cancellation of registration. The court emphasized that the intention of the government was to facilitate the revival of registrations and not to debar taxpayers from coming back into the GST fold. Conclusion: The court concluded that the petitioners should be given an opportunity to revive their GST registrations to ensure compliance with the GST regime and avoid revenue loss to the government. The court quashed the impugned orders and granted relief to the petitioners subject to certain conditions, including filing returns for the period prior to the cancellation of registration, payment of tax, interest, and penalties, and compliance with statutory requirements. The court directed the respondents to take necessary steps to allow the petitioners to file their returns and pay the tax/penalty/fine within a specified period. The court emphasized that the provisions of the GST Acts should be interpreted to facilitate legitimate trade and commerce while ensuring tax compliance.
|
