M/S Sma Devices Private Limited vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax

Held

The High Court acknowledged the circumstances presented by the petitioner, including the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months and the petitioner's inability to file a revocation application online due to time bar. The Court noted the petitioner's submission that there were no outstanding GST dues and the non-filing was due to a bona fide impression by their accountant. While the Special Government Pleader for State Tax could not confirm the absence of outstanding dues, the Court took into account the overall facts. The Court directed 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 and take a decision in accordance with law within three weeks thereafter. The reasoning appears to be based on a pragmatic approach to allow the petitioner an opportunity to present their case, considering the potential for a bona fide error and the absence of intentional evasion.

Facts

M/s StvlA Devices Private Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the High Court of Telangana challenging the order dated 10.12.2024, passed by the Superintendent of Central Tax, Uppal-III CGST Range (the first respondent), cancelling its GST registration. The cancellation was due to non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner argued that there were no outstanding GST dues, and the non-filing was due to a bona fide impression by their accountant that there was no business activity during the period. The petitioner's attempt to file a revocation application online was unsuccessful as it was time-barred. The petitioner sought a direction to the respondent to entertain their application manually.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can direct the competent authority to entertain a manual application for revocation of GST registration cancellation when the online portal does not permit it due to time bar, and if so, under what circumstances? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the cancellation of their GST registration was arbitrary and illegal, contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, and TGST Act, 2017, and previous judicial pronouncements. They asserted that there were no GST dues outstanding and the non-filing of returns was due to a bona fide mistake by their accountant. They relied on the principle that technicalities should not defeat substantial justice, especially when there is no intention to evade tax. Respondents' contention: The learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax stated they had no instructions regarding the assertion of no outstanding dues. However, they acknowledged that the cancellation was based on the apparent reason of non-filing of returns for six consecutive months.