Abdur Rezzak vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to similar relief as granted in previous similar matters, considering his willingness to furnish pending returns and make all applicable payments. The Court noted that cancellation of GST registration carries serious civil consequences. Relying on the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017, which allows for dropping proceedings if pending returns are furnished and dues are paid, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities. The ratio decidendi is that where a taxpayer demonstrates willingness to rectify non-compliance and pay dues, and the non-compliance was not wilful, the authorities should consider restoration of registration, especially when prior procedural lapses occurred without the taxpayer's knowledge. The Court directed the petitioner to file an application for revocation of suspension and restoration of GST registration within 20 days, and the authorities to process it within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

Facts

The petitioner, Abdur Rezzak, operating under the name M/s BSMD, had his GST Registration (GSTIN No. 12CGXPR3582D1Z1) suspended by the Superintendent, CGST & SCGST, Arunachal Pradesh, on January 14, 2023. The suspension was due to failure to furnish returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner claims he was unaware of the show cause notice and subsequent proceedings due to personal difficulties, including frequent visits to his native village to care for ailing parents. He states he is ready to furnish pending returns and pay all dues. Upon learning of the suspension, he was unable to access the GST portal to rectify the situation. A representation for revocation of suspension remains unconsidered.

Key Issues

1. Whether the suspension of GST registration for failure to furnish returns for six continuous months, without the petitioner's knowledge of the proceedings, warrants intervention by the High Court. The petitioner argued that the failure to furnish returns was due to unavoidable circumstances beyond his control, not wilful evasion of tax. He contended that he is willing to comply with all statutory requirements if granted an opportunity. He relied on previous orders of the High Court in similar cases (Dug Rade vs. Union of India and Mrs. Bina Taipodia vs. Union of India) where similar relief was granted. The respondents (Union of India and CGST authorities) fairly submitted that the previous orders cited by the petitioner would cover his case and agreed to similar relief.