M/S. V Ramu vs. Deputy State Tax Officer

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing that if the petitioner approaches the competent authority within one week from the date of the order for submission of an application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration certificate in physical form, the competent authority shall entertain it. The competent authority is then directed to take a decision on the application in accordance with law within three weeks thereafter. The Court noted that the cancellation was on account of non-filing of returns for six consecutive months and acknowledged the petitioner's submission regarding the accountant's issues and the inability to file through the portal. The Court did not make any specific finding on the legality of the cancellation order itself but provided a procedural remedy. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. V. Ramu, had its GST registration certificate (GST No.36AFFPV6630K1ZZ) cancelled by the Deputy State Tax Officer (1st Respondent) on 24.02.2023 due to non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner filed a time-barred appeal before the Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST) (2nd Respondent), which was dismissed on grounds of delay. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking revocation of the cancellation order. The petitioner contended that the non-filing of returns was due to personal inconveniences faced by their accountant, who failed to inform the petitioner and also did not bring the show cause notice to their attention. The petitioner claimed to be unaware of the non-filing and the subsequent cancellation. They also stated that the GST portal did not permit them to file a revocation application due to the time limit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration certificate by the 1st Respondent, vide order dated 24.02.2023, was illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law, including the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 and Telangana GST Act, 2017, and in contravention of the fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the cancellation was illegal and arbitrary. They attributed the non-filing of returns to their accountant's personal issues and lack of communication, leading to the petitioner's unawareness of the non-filing and the show cause notice. They also highlighted that the GST portal prevented them from filing a revocation application due to exceeding the prescribed time limit. The petitioner sought a direction for the 1st Respondent to entertain their application manually. Respondents' arguments: The Special Government Pleader for State Tax stated they had no instructions regarding the petitioner's assertion of no outstanding dues. However, they confirmed that the cancellation was based on the apparent reason of non-filing of returns for six consecutive months.