M/S. Flivv Web Development Private Limited vs. Deputy State Tax Officer

Held

The Court acknowledged the facts and circumstances, particularly that the GST registration was cancelled due to non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. The Court directed that if the petitioner approaches Respondent No.1 within one week from the date of the order for submission of an application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration in physical form, Respondent No.1 shall entertain the application. Respondent No.1 is further directed to take a decision on the application in accordance with law within three weeks thereafter. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of this direction. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. FLIW WEB DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The cancellation order, dated 21.09.2024, was issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner contended that the non-filing was due to the accountant's failure and not intentional delay. The petitioner attempted to file a revocation application, but the GST portal did not permit it due to the time limit. The petitioner sought directions to restore its registration or, alternatively, to remit the proceedings for fresh adjudication after proper notice and an opportunity to file pending returns and pay dues.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months, without affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to explain the circumstances and file pending returns, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act, TGST Act, and Rules made thereunder? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the non-filing of returns was due to the failure of their accountant and not an intentional delay. They further submitted that the GST portal prevented them from filing a revocation application beyond the prescribed time limit. Therefore, they prayed for the respondent No.1 to entertain their application manually and decide it in accordance with the law. Respondents' Arguments: The learned Assistant Government Pleader for State Tax submitted that the cancellation was solely due to non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. They agreed that if the petitioner approached respondent No.1, the application could be entertained manually, as the portal does not allow submissions beyond the time limit, and respondent No.1 would consider the application in accordance with law.