2022 (10) TMI 178 - HC - GST

Cancellation of registration of petitioner - petitioners have missed the bus in regard to several opportunities that were extended to them post-cancellation of the registrations by way of Amnesty Schemes - TNGST Act - HELD THAT - Identical issue decided in the case M. MALLIKA MAHAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MANTHIRAM, S/O. SUNMUGAVEL VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GST-APPEAL, CHENNAI-II, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CIRCLE OFFICER, (ST AND GST) 2022 (9) TMI 1106 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where it was held that The petitioners are permitted 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. Since all learned counsels for the petitioners and the respondents concur on the position that the above order will be applicable on all fours in the present writ petitions, the same order is taken to be passed in these matters as well. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to cancellation of registrations under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Failure to avail remedies under Section 30 and appeal before the Appellate Authority - Judicial consideration of identical issues in previous cases - Implementation of directions in previous order dated 31.01.2022 - Application of previous order to present writ petitions.

Analysis:
The High Court of Madras considered a batch of writ petitions challenging the cancellation of registrations under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the petitioners had missed opportunities provided through Amnesty Schemes to restore their cancelled registrations. Two remedies were available for revocation of cancellation: one under Section 30 to be availed within thirty days, and the other through an appeal before the Appellate Authority within three months from the date of communication of the cancellation order. Most petitioners had not availed either remedy, except for a few who had belatedly filed appeals accompanied by returns and admitted tax amounts.

In some cases, the appellate authority rejected the appeals, leading to the filing of the present writ petitions. The Court highlighted a previous order where similarly placed petitioners had approached the assessing authority under Section 30 or appealed the cancellation orders under Section 107. The Court accepted the petitioners' cases in the previous order, imposing certain conditions. The State had sought guidance from the GST Council regarding the previous order but had not received a response, leading the Court to conclude that the State had accepted the order by not challenging it within the stipulated time.

The Court reiterated the directions from the previous order, allowing petitioners to file returns for the period before cancellation, pay defaulted taxes with interest, and fines within forty-five days. The Court clarified that such payments should not be made from unutilized Input Tax Credit. Upon compliance with the payment and return filing, the registrations would be revived immediately. The respondents were instructed to make necessary changes in the GST Web Portal to facilitate these actions within forty-five days from the receipt of the order. As all parties agreed that the previous order would apply to the present writ petitions, the Court passed the same order in the current matters. The writ petitions were allowed, with no costs incurred, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.