2025 (1) TMI 119 - HC - GST

Cancellation of registration granted to the petitioners under the provisions of the CGST / SGST Acts - rejection on the ground that it was belatedly filed - HELD THAT - The show cause notice issued to the petitioner in this case is produced as Ext.P1. A perusal of Ext.P1 shows that the same has been issued in Form GST Reg 31, which is the form for issuing a notice regarding suspension of registration. A perusal of the judgment of this Court in W.P(C)No.29807 of 2022 2022 (12) TMI 1370 - KERALA HIGH COURT will indicate that it was a case where a show cause notice has been issued alleging that there was failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months. Conclusion - The cancellation orders quashed, allowing the petitioners to restore their registrations subject to conditions imposed. Petition disposed off.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions addressed in this judgment are:

Whether the cancellation of registration under the CGST/SGST Acts was valid when the show cause notice was issued in the incorrect form.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to relief based on the precedent set by previous judgments of the Kerala High Court and the Madras High Court.
Whether the petitioners can benefit from the Amnesty Scheme introduced by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.
Whether the court can extend the statutory time limit for filing an appeal or an application for revocation under the CGST/SGST Acts.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of Cancellation of Registration

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The CGST Rules require the issuance of a show cause notice in Form GST REG-17 for cancellation of registration. However, the notices were issued in Form REG-31, which pertains to suspension of registration under Rule 21A.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court emphasized the principle that when a statute prescribes a specific manner for doing an act, it must be done in that manner or not at all. This principle was supported by the precedent set in Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala.
Key evidence and findings: The show cause notices issued to the petitioners were in the incorrect form, which rendered the cancellation proceedings without jurisdiction.
Application of law to facts: The court found that the use of Form REG-31 instead of Form REG-17 was a procedural error that invalidated the cancellation orders.
Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents argued that the incorrect form did not cause prejudice to the petitioners, but the court held that procedural compliance is mandatory.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the cancellation orders were invalid due to the procedural error in issuing the show cause notices.

Issue 2: Entitlement to Relief Based on Precedents

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court referred to its previous judgments in W.P(C)No.28783 of 2022 and W.P(C)No.29807 of 2022, which dealt with similar procedural issues.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court followed the reasoning in its prior judgments, which emphasized the necessity of following the prescribed procedure for cancellation of registration.
Key evidence and findings: The petitioners' cases were found to be similar to the cases in the previous judgments.
Application of law to facts: The court applied the legal principles from the prior cases to the current petitions, finding that the petitioners were entitled to relief.
Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents' contention that the prior judgments should not apply was rejected.
Conclusions: The court held that the petitioners were entitled to relief based on the precedents.

Issue 3: Applicability of the Amnesty Scheme

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Amnesty Scheme was introduced by notification No.03 of 2023-Central Tax, which provides relief for certain cases of registration cancellation.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court considered the Madras High Court's judgment in Active Pest Control, which extended the scheme's benefits beyond the specified cut-off date.
Key evidence and findings: The court noted that the scheme's terms were not met by the petitioners, but it considered extending the benefits as per the Madras High Court's approach.
Application of law to facts: The court was inclined to extend the scheme's benefits to the petitioners, subject to conditions.
Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents argued against extending the scheme's benefits, citing strict adherence to its terms.
Conclusions: The court decided to apply the conditions set by the Madras High Court for extending the scheme's benefits to the petitioners.

Issue 4: Extension of Statutory Time Limits

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The CGST/SGST Acts prescribe specific time limits for filing appeals and applications for revocation.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court acknowledged the statutory limits but exercised its discretion to provide relief in light of procedural errors.
Key evidence and findings: The appeal in one case was rejected due to delay, but the court focused on the procedural error in the show cause notice.
Application of law to facts: The court balanced the procedural error against the statutory time limits, opting to provide relief.
Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents insisted on strict adherence to time limits, but the court prioritized procedural fairness.
Conclusions: The court allowed the petitions, setting aside the cancellation orders and imposing conditions for relief.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all."
Core principles established: The necessity of adhering to prescribed procedural forms in administrative actions; the potential for courts to extend statutory benefits in light of procedural errors.
Final determinations on each issue: The court quashed the cancellation orders, allowing the petitioners to restore their registrations subject to conditions similar to those imposed by the Madras High Court.

← Previous Next →