Sarvana Tryitfirst INDIA Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer

Held

The Court directed that if the petitioner approaches the competent authority within one week from the date of the order with a physical application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration, the competent authority shall entertain the application and decide it in accordance with law within three weeks thereafter. The Court noted that the cancellation was due to non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. The reasoning appears to be a pragmatic approach to allow the petitioner an opportunity to regularize their GST registration, considering the stated technical difficulties and the absence of a clear denial of no outstanding dues by the respondents. The ratio decidendi is that procedural technicalities should not completely bar a genuine attempt to rectify a situation, especially when principles of natural justice are invoked and the revenue has not demonstrated prejudice.

Facts

The petitioner, Sarvana Tryitfirst India Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The registration was cancelled by the Deputy State Tax Officer on August 23, 2024, for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner stated that the non-filing was due to their accountant's lack of technical skill for online filing and not intentional delay. They wished to file an application for revocation of cancellation, but the GST portal did not permit this due to time limitations. The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to accept a manual application for revocation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the respondents to accept a manual application for revocation of GST registration cancellation, given the petitioner's inability to file online due to technical limitations and the alleged absence of outstanding dues. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of principles of natural justice and the procedural flexibility available under GST law. Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the cancellation was arbitrary and illegal, violating principles of natural justice. They claimed no GST dues were outstanding. They further contended that the GST portal's time bar prevented them from filing a revocation application, necessitating a manual submission. Contentions of the Respondents: The respondents, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader, stated they had no instructions regarding the petitioner's assertion of no outstanding dues. They acknowledged that the cancellation was based on non-filing of returns for six consecutive months.