9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 930X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncellation to say that it was not aware of the registration under the composition scheme under Section 10 of CGST Act is not something believable and to say that he could come to know this mistake of even while filing of return of his income is also not believable. It is taken the GST registration under the composition scheme, the option is always with the taxpayer and it is his first application for the cancellation of this registration under the composition scheme had come on 8.4.2022. It is case of the petitioner that he got an order for export in March, 2022. He had already exported the goods to say that he was unaware of such operation under the composition permission and was not entitled to the expert goods under such permission is not acceptable. In the instant case as can be noticed , his expert has been made on 16th March, 2022, as per this provision he ceases to satisfy the conditions mentioned in Section 10 of CGST Rule and therefore, his request for cancellation of registration under the composition permission shall need to be essentially from the date on which, he had breached the condition stipulated in section 10 of the CGST Act. To that extent, the petitioner is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awal was possible on the portal only with prospective effect. 3. The grievance on the part of the petitioner is composition permission was withdrawn with effect from 8.4.2022 i.e. the date on which the application of the petitioner was made. The portal did not allow him to retrospectively withdraw from the composition permission and hence, the petitioner raised a grievance with the GST helpdesk on 12.5.2022. 4. The reply was received by the petitioner on 6.6.2022 that the portal would allow cancellation of permission only for the financial year in which application has been made. The same was since in the month of April 2022, retrospectively, it would not be feasible. 5. In absence of any positive solution, the petitioner was not in a position to file returns as a regular taxable person for the month of March, 2022, when he had made the export transaction. He filed an application before the jurisdictional officer on 16.6.2022 requesting for cancellation of composition permission with effect from 1.3.2022 to enable him to file returns as regular taxable person under the GST Act. 6. Notice was issued on 27.6.2022 as a return defaulter and calling upon the petitioner to fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for normal and regular taxpayer i.e. GSTR-1M/GSTR-1Q and GSTR- 3BM/GSTR-3B Q, for the period from the date of registration i.e. 26.12.2021 till that date when it became aware that petitioner is registered under Composition Scheme under Section 10 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner would have come to know of the said mistake on 20.1.2022 i.e. at the time of filing of monthly/quarterly return prescribed for the period from 26.12.2021 to 31.12.2021 for which the due date was 20th January, 2022. No such effort was made by the Petitioner to know that petitioner did not have registration under normal and regular tax payer. Website also was indicative of the fact that the petitioner has filed CMP-08 returns on 3rd February, 2022. It was the quarterly return specifically prescribed for the taxpayer registered under Compositions Scheme udner Section 10 of the CGST Act, 2017 (as amended ) read with Rule 62 of CGST Rules, 2017 which action was indicative of fact that it was well aware that their registration is under Section 10 of CGST Act, 2017 and not under normal/regular taxpayers. It is also stand of the respondents that acceptance of Letter of Undertaking would not mean that a taxpay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, the reliefs as claimed by the petitioner are beyond the law and as there is no cause of action arising for such breach. 11. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner which may not be required to be amplified at this stage. Suffice to note that except the reference of Rule 6(2) of the CGST Rule, 2017 which supports the case of the petitioner that it ceases to be governed by the composition permission immediately from the date of breach of condition. So far as the Circular dated 31.12.2018 is concerned, the petitioner may not be allowed voluntary withdrawal from a date prior to beginning of financial year, in any case such permission is required to be cancelled by the authorities in terms of statutory provisions. 12. We have heard Mr. Uchit N. Sheth, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Priyank Lodha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 13. Mr. Sheth, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of Godway Furnicrafts Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in [2021] 95 GSTR 385 (AP). Section 10(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Act, 2017 provided that where the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08 returns but not the GSR 1M/GSTR-1Q and GSTR 3B/M/GSTR-3B Q returns which are meant for for regular/normal taxpayers for the period from the date of registration i.e. 26.12.2021 till the date it applied for cancellation to say that it was not aware of the registration under the composition scheme under Section 10 of CGST Act is not something believable and to say that he could come to know this mistake of even while filing of return of his income is also not believable. It is taken the GST registration under the composition scheme, the option is always with the taxpayer and it is his first application for the cancellation of this registration under the composition scheme had come on 8.4.2022. It is case of the petitioner that he got an order for export in March, 2022. He had already exported the goods to say that he was unaware of such operation under the composition permission and was not entitled to the expert goods under such permission is not acceptable. It is also not palatable to accept that the tax consultant of the petitioner had erroneously chosen the option of composition under Section 10 of the CGST Act at the time of obtaining the registration and he was suffering. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
