2022 (3) TMI 165 - HC - GST

Condonation of delay in filing the revocation application - Revocation of cancellation of registration of petitioner - petitioner had not furnished returns for a continuous period of six months - HELD THAT - Having conceded by both the parties the delay in invocation of proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 23 of the OGST Rules is condoned. The Petitioner is directed to deposit all the taxes interest penalty and late fee as may be due and comply with formalities. Upon such compliance the Petitioner s application for revocation will be considered in accordance with law. Subject to the Petitioner complying with the above conditions the department will open the portal to enable the Petitioner to file the GST returns. The writ petition is disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to cancellation of GST registration certificate due to non-filing of returns for six months; Failure to respond to GSTR-3A notice, REG-17 notice, and personal hearing; Delay in filing revocation application; Compliance with statutory requirements for revocation of cancellation of registration.

Analysis:
The petitioner approached the court challenging the cancellation of the GST registration certificate under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, citing non-response to the Show Cause Notice for cancellation due to a continuous default in filing returns for six months. The petitioner claimed the default was due to ill-health but failed to respond to subsequent notices and personal hearing, leading to cancellation of registration.

The counsel for the Opposite Parties argued that the delay in filing the revocation application needed to be condoned, and the petitioner must fulfill statutory obligations by paying tax, interest, penalty, and late fees. The petitioner agreed to comply with the requirements by depositing the necessary amounts and filing returns, referring to a previous court order for compliance.

The court examined the provisions for revocation of cancellation of registration under Section 30 of the Act, emphasizing the opportunity for the applicant to be heard before rejection of the revocation application. The court also referred to Rule 23 of the OGST Rules, 2017, which outlines the procedure for revocation of cancellation, including the submission of an application within thirty days of cancellation, subject to fulfilling tax payment and return filing requirements.

Consequently, the court condoned the delay in invoking the relevant rule, directing the petitioner to deposit all outstanding amounts and comply with formalities for revocation. Upon compliance, the petitioner's application for revocation would be considered, and the department would enable the petitioner to file GST returns once again. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, emphasizing compliance with statutory conditions for revocation of cancellation of registration.