9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 128 - HC - GSTMaintainability of appeal - time limitation - appeal rejected on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation - Seeking direction to revoke the cancellation of petitioners GSTN Registration - HELD THAT - In identical circumstances, this Court, in the case of TVL. SUGUNA CUTPIECE CENTER VERSUS THE APPELLATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) (GST) , THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CIRCLE) , SALEM BAZAAR. 2022 (2) TMI 933 - MADRAS HIGH COURT held that 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. In view of the fact that this Court has been consistently following the directions issued in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others and the Revenue/Department has also accepted the said view as evident from the fact that no appeal has been filed in any of the matters, this Court intends to follow the above order of this Court. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Quashing of Reference No.ZA330421207302D and order in Appeal no.MAD-CGST-JTC-APP-087 2. Cancellation of petitioner's GSTN Registration No. 33CULPS7963K1ZR 3. Rejection of appeal on the ground of limitation 4. Legal sustainability of rejection of appeal beyond the period of limitation 5. Consistent view in similar matters by the Court 6. Benefit extension to the petitioner based on previous judgments Analysis: 1. The writ petition sought to quash Reference No.ZA330421207302D and the order in Appeal no.MAD-CGST-JTC-APP-087, along with the cancellation of the petitioner's GSTN Registration No. 33CULPS7963K1ZR, deeming them illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was unaware of the registration cancellation until informed by other taxpayers. An appeal was filed but rejected due to being beyond the limitation period. 2. The petitioner's counsel cited a previous case where the Court issued specific directions in similar circumstances. These directions included filing returns for the period before cancellation, paying defaulted taxes with interest and fines, not using unutilized Input Tax Credit, and getting approval for any utilized credit before future use. The Court had consistently followed these directions in subsequent cases. 3. The Respondent's Senior Standing Counsel argued that the appellate authority must adhere to the prescribed limitations, making the rejection of the appeal beyond the limitation period legally valid. The Court noted a consistent view in such matters, with the revenue not challenging previous orders, indicating their acceptance. 4. Given the Court's consistent approach and the Revenue's acceptance of previous judgments, the Court decided to extend the benefit granted in earlier cases to the petitioner. The Court ordered the writ petition in line with the terms mentioned in a specific paragraph of a previous judgment, ensuring no costs were imposed. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed as a result of this decision.
|
