2025 (2) TMI 837 - HC - GST

Cancellation of the registration of the petitioner on the premise that the statutory returns have not been filed for a continuous period of six months - HELD THAT - This Court has been consistently following the directions issued in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center s case 2022 (2) TMI 933 - MADRAS HIGH COURT wherein under identical circumstances this Court has directed the revocation of registration subject to conditions. The benefit extended by this Court vide its earlier order in Suguna Cut-piece Centre s case may be extended to the petitioner. Petition disposed off.

Summary

The High Court of Madras considered a case where the petitioner challenged the cancellation of their registration due to failure to file statutory returns for a continuous period of six months under the Goods and Services Tax Act. The key issues presented and considered in this judgment are as follows:1. Issue of challenge to cancellation of registration due to non-filing of statutory returns for six months.2. Application of previous judgments directing revocation of registration subject to conditions.3. Compliance with tax payment and filing requirements under the Act.The Court noted that the issue at hand was covered by previous judgments, starting with the decision in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner, where the Court directed revocation of registration subject to certain conditions. The Court highlighted that it had consistently followed the directions issued in the aforementioned case.The Court's analysis included the relevant legal framework under the Goods and Services Tax Act, as well as precedents set by previous judgments. The key evidence considered was the submission by both counsels that the issue was covered by previous judgments and that the petitioner was willing to pay any outstanding taxes along with late fees and interest.In applying the law to the facts of the case, the Court referred to the conditions set out in the previous judgment, including the requirement to file returns for the period prior to cancellation, pay any outstanding taxes, and comply with future tax obligations. The Court emphasized that any input tax credit should not be utilized until approved by the appropriate authorities.Competing arguments were not explicitly mentioned in the judgment, as both counsels appeared to be in agreement regarding the application of previous judgments to the present case.The significant holdings of the Court included the extension of benefits to the petitioner based on the previous judgment in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece case. The Court disposed of the writ petition in favor of the petitioner, directing them to comply with the conditions outlined in the previous judgment for the revocation of registration. No costs were awarded in the judgment.In conclusion, the High Court of Madras upheld the petitioner's challenge to the cancellation of their registration, subject to compliance with the conditions set out in previous judgments. The Court's decision was based on established legal principles and precedents in similar cases, ensuring that the petitioner fulfilled their tax obligations under the Goods and Services Tax Act.