2022 (5) TMI 289 - HC - GST

Seeking revival of GST registration so that the petitioner can file GST-R1 and GST-R3B returns regularly - Removal of name of company from register of companies - power of Registrar to strike off the name - name of the company was struck off primarily on the ground that the returns were not filed - Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT - In this case, there is a deliberate attempt on the part of the private respondents to close down the business and thereby impact the profits of the business carried out by the petitioner from unit B. The National Company Law Tribunal is also seized of the matter, which started in the year 2003, it has not seen the final conclusion till date. The writ petition that has been filed by the petitioner stands allowed by directing the petitioner to take steps to revive the GST registration, which stands cancelled.

Summary

Issues:
1. Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to receive tax due without penalty.
2. Restoration of the writ petition.
3. Opposition to the prayer by private respondents.
4. Interpretation of Sections 248 and 250 of the Companies Act, 2013.
5. Deliberate attempt to close down the business by private respondents.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought a Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to receive outstanding taxes without penalty, enabling the petitioner to file GST returns. The court earlier directed the petitioner to pay due taxes for Unit B, allowing compliance with the Act for that unit. The respondents were instructed to provide temporary user ID and password for filing returns, with the option to initiate proceedings against the company for defaults. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations, emphasizing the need for tax payment and compliance.

2. The writ petition was initially disposed of, but private respondents filed an application for restoration due to an ex-parte order. The court recalled the previous order, reinstating the writ petition for further consideration.

3. Private respondents opposed the prayer, citing alternative remedies under Section 107 of GST enactments and Section 250 of the Companies Act, 2013. They argued that the company's name was struck off for failure to file returns, but the conditions for striking off were not met as Unit B was operational. The court found the objections meritless, emphasizing the purpose of GST enactments to ensure tax collection on all supplies.

4. The court analyzed Sections 248 and 250 of the Companies Act, 2013, concluding that Section 250 applies only if a company stands dissolved under Section 248. As the petitioner's company was operational, the opposition's arguments lacked merit. The court dismissed the relevance of filing an appeal against the registration cancellation under other acts.

5. The court noted a deliberate attempt by private respondents to close down the business, impacting the petitioner's profits from Unit B. The National Company Law Tribunal was involved in a matter since 2003 without a final conclusion. Considering these factors, the court allowed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to revive the cancelled GST registration and urging the NCLT to expedite the related company petition for closure.