2024 (7) TMI 804 - HC - GST

Jurisdiction to condone the delay caused in filing the GST Appeal - Suspension of registration of the Petitioner - HELD THAT - The cause of the Petitioner receiving an adverse order from the State Tax Officer, is on account of the lapse on his part in not submitting the tax returns for six consecutive months. Reasons could be varied. However, the fact remains that if the impugned order is sustained, the Petitioner would not be in a position to conduct his business and he would then have to move the appropriate Authority for a fresh registration. If the Petitioner can be permitted to seek a re-hearing before the State Tax Officer, subject to certain conditions for the lapse on its part, ends of justice would be met. The case put forth by the Petitioner for not being able to formalize the monthly tax returns, was that his sole Accountant suffered from Covid-19 infection and it is known to all that during such Covid-19 times, even the closest blood relative was not permitted to meet the patient and there are instances when the dead body of a person, who had suffered death due to Covid-19, was not handed over to the relatives and had to be disposed off by the Authorities themselves. It is in these circumstances that token cost of Rs. 5,000/-, could be imposed upon the Petitioner. Petition allowed in part.

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner to condone delay in filing GST appeal.
2. Suspension of registration due to failure to submit tax returns for consecutive months.
3. Right to conduct business despite cancellation of registration.
4. Applicability of judgment in similar cases.
5. Revocation of cancellation of registration under GST Act.
6. Validity of adverse order due to lapse in submitting tax returns.
7. Imposition of costs for failure to file tax returns due to Covid-19 circumstances.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the issue of the Deputy Commissioner's jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing a GST appeal. It was established that the Deputy Commissioner did not have the authority to condone the delay, leading to the order dated 18.12.2023 remaining valid.

2. The case involved the suspension of the petitioner's registration due to the failure to submit tax returns for six consecutive months. The State Tax Officer suspended the registration based on this lapse, which was the primary reason for the subsequent cancellation of registration.

3. The judgment discussed the right of the petitioner to conduct business despite the cancellation of registration. It referenced a previous judgment that highlighted the government's inability to curtail an individual's right to engage in business or profession, even if the registration certificate is canceled.

4. Reference was made to a judgment by a co-ordinate Bench in a similar case, emphasizing that the petitioner could apply for revocation of the cancellation order to continue operating within the bounds of the GST Act and enactments.

5. The judgment explored the revocation of cancellation of registration under the GST Act, citing Section 30, which allows a registered person to apply for revocation subject to prescribed conditions and procedures.

6. The adverse order received by the petitioner was deemed to be a result of the lapse in submitting tax returns for six consecutive months. The judgment acknowledged various reasons for the lapse but focused on providing an opportunity for the petitioner to seek re-hearing before the State Tax Officer.

7. Considering the circumstances surrounding the failure to file tax returns, particularly due to Covid-19 related issues, the judgment imposed a token cost on the petitioner as a partial solution. This cost was set at Rs. 5,000 to be deposited with the relevant authority by a specified date.

In conclusion, the judgment partially allowed the Writ Petition, quashing the impugned orders and remitting the proceedings to the relevant authority, with specific conditions and timelines outlined to address the issues raised in the case.

← Previous Next →