M/S Barluit Organic Farmers Producer Company Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors

Held

The Court held that given the cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, for non-furnishing of returns for six months, and considering the serious civil consequences of such cancellation, the proviso to Sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017, offers a path for relief. This proviso allows for dropping proceedings if the person furnishes all pending returns and makes full payment of tax dues, along with applicable interest and late fees. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's subsequent compliance and willingness to fulfill these requirements warrant consideration. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the concerned authority within two months seeking restoration of their GST registration. If the petitioner complies with all requirements as per the proviso to Sub-rule (4) of Rule 22, the authority shall consider the application and pass necessary orders expeditiously. The period stipulated under Section 73(10) shall be computed from the date of this order, except for the financial year 2024-25. The petitioner is liable to pay arrears of tax, penalty, interest, and late fees.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Barluit Organic Farmers Producer Company Limited, a company registered under the CGST Act, 2017, had its GST registration cancelled by the Superintendent, CGST Range, Nalbari Range, vide an order dated 05.12.2024. This cancellation was due to the non-filing of GST returns for a continuous period of six months, following a show cause notice dated 18.10.2024. The petitioner failed to reply to the show cause notice within the stipulated time due to a lack of familiarity with the GST portal and issues with their consultant. Although the petitioner subsequently updated all pending returns up to September 2024 and paid dues, late fees, and interest, they could not file an application for revocation of cancellation as the time limit had expired. An appeal against the cancellation order was dismissed as barred by limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's GST registration, cancelled under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, for non-filing of returns for six months, can be restored given the petitioner's subsequent compliance and willingness to fulfill all formalities as per the proviso to Sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that their failure to file returns was due to a lack of conversance with the GST portal and miscommunication with their consultant. They have since updated all pending returns and discharged all GST dues, late fees, and interest. They are ready to comply with the requirements of the proviso to Sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017. They also relied on a previous High Court order in a similar case (Sanjoy Nath vs. Union of India & Ors.). Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.