2024 (9) TMI 823 - HC - GST

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - appeal filed by the petitioner is beyond the condonation period prescribed under Section 107 (4) of the GST Act - cancellation of GST registration - petitioner has not filed GSTR returns for the period of more than six months - HELD THAT - Under identical circumstances in a batch of matters in TVL. SUGUNA CUTPIECE CENTER VERSUS THE APPELLATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) (GST) , THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CIRCLE) , SALEM BAZAAR. 2022 (2) TMI 933 - MADRAS HIGH COURT allowed the said Writ Petitions, subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed. Recording the same, this Court is inclined to allow this Writ Petition on the conditions, which was agreed to by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the same was not objected by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order-in-appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act for being beyond the condonation period.
2. Cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of GSTR returns.
3. Comparison with a previous batch of matters and conditions imposed by the court.

Analysis:
1. The Writ Petition challenges the order-in-appeal of the second respondent under Section 107 of the CGST Act, contending that the appeal was filed beyond the condonation period specified in Section 107(4) of the GST Act. The petitioner, a GST-registered proprietorship, had its registration canceled for not filing GSTR returns for over six months. An appeal was filed against this cancellation, leading to the impugned order-in-appeal dated 10.01.2024.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that in a similar batch of cases, the court had allowed Writ Petitions subject to specific conditions. These conditions included filing returns for the period preceding registration cancellation, paying outstanding taxes with interest, not utilizing unclaimed Input Tax Credit, scrutinizing and approving any utilized credit, paying GST in cash for subsequent periods, and imposing restrictions to prevent misuse of Input Tax Credit. The court, considering this precedent, agreed to allow the current Writ Petition based on these conditions, which were accepted by both parties.

3. Consequently, the court allowed the Writ Petition, with no costs imposed, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions. The judgment reflects a consistent approach based on previous decisions in similar matters, ensuring compliance with GST regulations and safeguarding against potential misuse of Input Tax Credit, thereby upholding the principles of tax law and procedural fairness.