2022 (12) TMI 816 - HC - GST

Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - Section 30 of the Central GST Act - HELD THAT - Since, the petitioner failed to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months and show cause notice has been sent to him, it is directed that the petitioner shall file an application for revocation under Section 30 of the CGST Act in terms of Rule 23 of the CGST Rules. Though it is time barred, we are inclined to wave the limitation and direct the petitioner to file application for revocation within 21 days hence - He shall also comply the other provision of Section 30 of the CGST Act, i.e, submission of returns for the defaulted six months and any further completed months after the revocation. In such case if dues is found to be due from the petitioner and he pays the same than his case shall be considered liberally by the revenue and shall be dispose of within 15 days. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of cancellation of GST registration order
2. Quashing of order in appeal
3. Filing an application for revocation of GST registration

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought relief through a writ application to quash the cancellation of GST registration order dated 05.05.2022, expressing readiness to pay any outstanding tax, interest, or late fees. The court considered the impact of denial of GST registration on the petitioner's livelihood, emphasizing the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. It noted the petitioner's occupation as a semi-skilled laborer and the necessity of a GST registration number for work opportunities. The Court highlighted the strict limitations on appeals, acknowledging the potential deprivation of livelihood due to the cancellation of GST registration.

2. The petitioner also requested the quashing of the order in appeal passed by respondent no. 3. The Court, in Special Appeal No. 123 of 2022, emphasized the importance of timely appeals and the limitations imposed by the legislature. It recognized the petitioner's predicament as a painter and the adverse effects of the lack of a GST registration number on securing work opportunities. The Court linked the denial of the GST number to the violation of the right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing the critical nature of the issue.

3. The petitioner, engaged in the jewellery trading business, was directed to file an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation under Section 30 of the Central GST Act. The counsel for the revenue highlighted the option available to the petitioner for revocation, subject to fulfilling certain conditions, including filing appropriate returns. Despite the time-barred nature of the application, the Court waived the limitation period, instructing the petitioner to file for revocation within 21 days. The petitioner was also required to comply with Section 30 provisions, such as submitting returns for the defaulted months. The Court stressed the importance of considering the livelihood of individuals associated with the petitioner and directed a liberal approach in case of dues, with a commitment to expedite the disposal process.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the petitioner's concerns regarding the cancellation of GST registration, highlighting the significance of the right to livelihood and the procedural aspects of filing for revocation under the CGST Act. The Court's decision balanced the interests of the petitioner with the necessity of compliance with statutory requirements, emphasizing the broader impact on individuals dependent on the petitioner's business activities.