Mahesh Bharat Rumane vs. Superitendent Renge Vi Div -V Raigad Commissionerate And Ors

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner is entitled to relief, as the material facts and circumstances are similar to the case of Azaria Corp LLP. The Court noted that the Petitioner had explained the reasons for non-compliance and, crucially, had filed returns for November 2022 to June 2023 and paid the GST dues, interest, and late fees. The Court found that permanent cancellation of registration for failure to file returns or pay dues, especially when the Petitioner has made amends by paying dues, interest, and late fees, may not be in the interest of either the Petitioner or the Revenue. The Court reasoned that restoration would benefit both parties, allowing the Petitioner to conduct business and pay GST, and the Revenue to receive taxes. The Court directed the Respondents to inform the Petitioner within 15 days if any further amounts towards penalty, etc., are due. The Petitioner must pay any such demanded amount within 15 days of receipt of intimation. If no intimation is sent or payment is made, the cancellation order dated 07 July 2023 shall stand quashed and set aside. The Petitioner must also pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Government KEM Hospital within 15 days. If the Petitioner fails to pay any further demanded amounts, the petition will stand dismissed with costs payable to the hospital. The issue of whether any further penalty was due was expressly left to be determined by the Respondents.

Facts

The Petitioner, Mahesh Bharat Rumane, filed a writ petition seeking the restoration of his cancelled GST registration. The registration was cancelled due to failure to file returns and pay GST dues. The Petitioner contended that he has since filed returns for November 2022 to June 2023 and paid the outstanding GST dues, along with interest and late fees, as detailed in paragraph 4.5 of the petition. The Respondents, Superintendent-Range-IV Div-V Raigad Commissionerate & Ors, were represented, but the counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 stated they had no instructions regarding restoration, leaving the matter to the Court's determination. The Petitioner argued that the facts are similar to a previous case, Azaria Corp LLP vs the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, decided by the same Court on the same day, where similar relief was granted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the restoration of his GST registration, considering his subsequent compliance with filing returns and payment of dues, and in light of the Court's previous order in Azaria Corp LLP vs the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on principles of natural justice and proportionality in tax administration). Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the material facts are similar to the Azaria Corp LLP case, where relief was granted. He submitted that he has rectified the non-compliance by filing returns for November 2022 to June 2023 and paying all dues, interest, and late fees. He further offered to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards a Government hospital. Respondents' Arguments: The Respondents' counsel stated they had no instructions to make a statement on restoration but left the matter for the Court's determination, referencing cases like Stanley Aphonsus D’silva and BBK Corporation.