Adventurers Abode Tourism Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors

Held

The Court held that the cancellation of GST registration has serious civil consequences. Referring to the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017, the Court noted that if a person served with a show cause notice under Section 29(2)(c) furnishes all pending returns and makes full payment of tax dues, interest, and late fees, the empowered officer can drop the proceedings and pass an order in Form GST REG-20. The Court found that the petitioner had indeed filed pending returns and made full payment. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the concerned authority within two months for restoration of GST registration, provided they comply with the requirements of the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22. The concerned authority was directed to consider the application for restoration in accordance with law and take necessary steps expeditiously. The period stipulated under Section 73(10) of the CGST/SGST Act would be computed from the date of the instant order, except for the financial year 2024-25. The petitioner remains liable to pay arrears of tax, penalty, interest, and late fees.

Facts

The petitioner, Adventurers Abode Tourism Private Limited, is registered under the CGST Act, 2017. Due to non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months, the Superintendent, CGST, Range-II-D, Guwahati, issued a show cause notice dated 11.10.2023. The petitioner failed to reply within the stipulated period or attend a personal hearing, as no date was notified. Consequently, the Superintendent passed an order dated 22.04.2024 cancelling the petitioner's GST registration. The petitioner claimed personal difficulties prevented a timely reply and that pending returns up to January 2023 have since been filed, with all dues, late fees, and interest paid.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, for non-filing of returns for six months, is valid when the petitioner has subsequently filed all pending returns and paid dues, interest, and late fees? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that due to personal difficulties, the reply to the show cause notice was delayed. They have since filed all pending returns and discharged all GST dues, including late fees and interest. They are willing to comply with the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017. They relied on a similar order in WP(C) No. 6366/2023 (Sanjoy Nath vs. Union of India). Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.