Sri Saptagiri Events. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax

Held

The Court acknowledged that the GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. Recognizing the petitioner's submission regarding the difficulty in filing online returns due to technical limitations of their accountant and the inability to file a revocation application online due to time bar, the Court directed the competent authority to entertain a physical/manual application for revocation of cancellation. The competent authority was instructed to consider this application and pass a decision in accordance with the law within three weeks from the date of submission. The Court disposed of the writ petition with this direction, noting that the petitioner had approached the court for revocation of cancellation of GST Registration Certificate as it was time-barred to prefer an appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Saptagiri Events, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The registration was cancelled by an order dated 03.05.2024, in Form GST REG-19, due to non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner contended that the non-filing was due to the accountant's lack of technical skill for online filing and not intentional. The petitioner sought to file a manual application for revocation of cancellation as the GST portal did not permit online submission due to time bar. The respondents, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, stated they had no instructions regarding the petitioner's assertion of no outstanding dues but confirmed the cancellation was for non-filing of returns.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration in Form GST REG-19 dated 03.05.2024, for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months, is void, arbitrary, illegal, and issued without authority of law and jurisdiction, in violation of the principles of natural justice? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and relevant GST provisions). Petitioner's arguments: The cancellation was illegal and arbitrary, violating natural justice. The non-filing of returns was due to the accountant's technical limitations, not intentional evasion. The GST portal's time bar prevented a manual application for revocation, necessitating court intervention. Respondents' arguments: The cancellation was based on the statutory ground of non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. They had no instructions to confirm the petitioner's claim of no outstanding dues.