9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 683 - HC - GSTCancellation of GST registration of petitioner - non-filing of returns for a continuous period of seven months - petitioner assails an appellate order rejecting the appeal against cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration and also such order of cancellation - petitioner suffered from kidney and heart related issues - HELD THAT - The appellate authority cannot be faulted for rejecting the appeal in view of the language of Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. At the same time, the petitioner should not be left without remedy. The reasons set out in the order of cancellation is non filing of returns for a continuous period of more than six months. In Suguna Cutpiece v. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST)(GST) and others, 2022 (2) TMI 933 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , this Court directed restoration of registration subject to certain conditions. In the over all facts and circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to an order on similar lines. The petitioner is directed to file returns for the period prior to the cancellation of registration, together with tax dues along with interest thereon and the fee fixed for belated filing of returns within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - restoration of the GST registration is allowed subject to and conditional upon fulfilling the conditions imposed - petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the rejection of the appeal against the cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns for a continuous period, the time bar for filing the appeal, and the lack of remedy for the petitioner except to approach the High Court. Details of the Judgment: 1. The petitioner challenged an appellate order rejecting the appeal against the cancellation of their GST registration, citing health issues as the reason for non-filing of returns. The cancellation order was issued after a show cause notice, and the appeal was rejected as time-barred. 2. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the only recourse left for the petitioner is to approach the High Court, referring to a previous order of the Court in a related matter. 3. The senior standing counsel for the respondents pointed out that the appeal was filed after the deadline for condonation of delay and questioned whether returns were filed up to the date of cancellation. 4. The Court noted that the appellate authority was justified in rejecting the appeal based on the provisions of Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. However, considering the circumstances, the petitioner should not be left without a remedy. Referring to a previous case, the Court directed restoration of registration subject to certain conditions. 5. The Court disposed of the writ petition with directions for the petitioner to file returns for the period before and after the cancellation, pay tax dues, interest, and fees within a specified timeline. The utilization of Input Tax Credit was also regulated, and the registration would stand revived upon compliance. 6. The restoration of GST registration was made conditional upon fulfilling the specified conditions within the timelines set by the Court. 7. The Court disposed of the case with no costs, and the respondents were instructed to make necessary changes in the GST Web portal to facilitate compliance with the Court's directions within a specified timeframe.
|
