2023 (4) TMI 963 - HC - GST

Seeking revocation of cancellation of GSTIN registration - failure to file return for a continuous period of three months - 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 The petitioners are directed 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. In view of the fact that this Court has been consistently following the directions issued in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece 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 allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the cancellation of GSTIN registration due to failure to file returns for a continuous period of three months, and the subsequent appeal against the cancellation.

Cancellation of GSTIN Registration:
The petitioner failed to file GST returns for three months, resulting in the cancellation of their GST registration by the second respondent. The cancellation was effective from a specified date. The petitioner, citing health issues, belatedly filed the returns until March, 2021. Due to the delay, the petitioner could not file an appeal within the stipulated time under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

Precedent and Directions:
Referring to a previous case, the Court issued directions for cases with similar circumstances. The directions included filing returns for the period prior to registration cancellation, payment of defaulted taxes with interest, restrictions on utilizing Input Tax Credit, payment of GST in cash for subsequent periods, and approval requirements for utilizing Input Tax Credit. The Court emphasized the need for scrutiny and approval by competent authorities before utilizing Input Tax Credit to prevent misuse.

Consistent Application of Precedent:
The Court noted its consistent application of the directions issued in the previous case and the acceptance of the Revenue Department, as evidenced by the absence of appeals. Consequently, the Court decided to follow the previous order and extend the benefits to the petitioner in the current case.

Decision and Order:
Based on the consistent application of previous orders and the acceptance of the Revenue Department, the Court allowed the writ petition on the same terms as mentioned in the earlier order. The petitioner was granted relief in line with the directions issued in the previous case, without imposing any costs.