9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he cases of the petitioners 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] . There some of the petitioner had filed an appeal beyond the period of limitation either for filing application for revocation of cancellation, while some of them had directly filed a writ petition against the order cancelling the registration. While some of them filed appeal beyond the statutory period of limitation, there was further delay in filing the writ petition. However, considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, it was held that no useful purpose will be served by keeping those petitioners out of the Goods and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner filed the pending returns for the Month up to August 2022 and since there was no business, the petitioner filed nil returns. The petitioner attempted to file a representation to revoke the cancellation of registration. The same was not accepted since the request for revocation is not filed within the statutory limitation of 90 (30+60) days. 3. He further submitted that the Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes vide proceedings, dated 07.04.2022 citing the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court directed all the higher officials of the department to direct the proper officers to exclude the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for the purpose of computing the limitation. Further, in support of his contention, he submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, it was held that no useful purpose will be served by keeping those petitioners out of the Goods and Services Tax regime, as such assessee would still continue to do business and supply goods/services. By not bringing them back to the Goods and Services Tax fold/regime, would not further the interest of the revenue. Relief was granted under similar circumstances with the following directions: 216. Since, no useful will be served by not allowing persons like the petitioners to revive their registration and integrate them back into the main stream, I am of the view that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and with few safeguards. 217. There are adequate safeguards under the GST enactments which can also be pressed again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he above discussion, these Writ Petitions are allowed subject to the following conditions:- i. The petitioners are directed to file their returns for the period prior to the cancellation of registration, if such returns have not been already filed, together with tax defaulted which has not been paid prior to cancellation along with interest for such belated payment of tax and fine and fee fixed for belated filing of returns for the defaulted period under the provisions of the Act, within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it has not been already paid. ii. It is made clear that such payment of Tax, Interest, fine / fee and etc. shall not be allowed to be made or adjusted from and o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
