Ms Yassung Yangfo vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Ms. Yassung Yangfo, operating as M/s Yasung Construction, is registered under the GST Act, 2017. She failed to file GST returns from August 2023 to April 2024 due to personal issues. Consequently, the Superintendent of Central Goods and Service Tax issued a show-cause notice on March 12, 2024, proposing cancellation of her registration. By an order dated April 20, 2024, her GST registration was cancelled. The petitioner did not file an appeal as the limitation period had expired. She approached the High Court, contending that the appellate authority lacks the power to condone delays beyond a specific period, leaving her without an alternative efficacious remedy.
Held
The Court interfered with and set aside the impugned order dated April 20, 2024, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration. The reasoning was based on the consensus arrived at by the parties, the determination made by a coordinate bench in a similar case (Krishanu Borthakur Vs. Union of India), and the fact that the petitioner had approached the court due to the limitations of the appellate authority's power to condone delay. The Court directed the Superintendent of Central Goods and Service Tax to inform the petitioner of all outstanding statutory dues up to the date of cancellation. Upon payment of these dues, the authorities are to revoke the cancellation and restore the petitioner's GST registration. The writ petition was disposed of with parties bearing their own costs.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to have her GST registration restored despite the expiry of the limitation period for filing an appeal against the cancellation order, considering the powers of the appellate authority to condone delay? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the appellate authority's power to condone delay is limited and that she has no other effective remedy, prompting her to approach the High Court. She relied on a coordinate bench's order in Krishanu Borthakur Vs. Union of India, where GST registration was restored under similar circumstances. Revenue's contention: The Standing Counsel for GST did not dispute that GST registration was restored in similar circumstances upon complete payment of dues. He indicated instructions to pass a similar order in this case, subject to the payment of all outstanding dues.
Sections Cited
GST Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
Date : 24-02-2025 Heard Mr. S. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI, representing respondent No.1 and Mr. M. K. Boro, learned Standing Counsel for GST, representing respondents No.2 and 3. 2. The petitioner is engaged in execution of work contract and is an SSC registered under the provision of GST Act, 2017 and he has GST registration being Registration No.12AELPY6793H1ZT w.e.f 29.12.2021. It is contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the registration under GST Act, the petitioner has been regularly submitting his GST returns, however, due to severe personal problems his GST return could not be submitted for a continuous period w.e.f. August, 2023 to April, 2024. Accordingly, on 12.03.2024, the respondent No.3 issued a Show-Cause Notice upon the petitioner to show cause as why his registration should not be cancelled for not filing the return for the aforesaid period.
Thereafter, by an order dated 20.04.2024, under Reference Number (ARN):AA1203240008005, the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled. Though, there is a provision of appeal, however, the petitioner did not approach the appellate authority as in the meantime, the period of limitation prescribed was over.
It is the contention of the petitioner that appellate authority is not Page No.# 3/4 vested with any power and juri iction to condone delay beyond 1(one) month after the expiring of 3(three) months and therefore, the petitioner has approach this Court having no other alternative efficacious remedy. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to an order dated 03.01.2025 passed by Co-ordinate Bench in WP(C) 7057/2024 (Krishanu Borthakur Vs. Union of India) and argues that by the aforesaid order, the GST registration was restored in a similar facts and circumstances.
Mr. M. K. Boro, learned Standing Counsel for the GST has not disputed the position that in the similar circumstances, the GST registration was restored upon complete payment of all dues, if any. And therefore, he contends that he has instruction that similar order may be passed in this case subject to payment of all dues.
Considering the matter in entirety and taking note of the determination made by the coordinate Bench in the case of Krishanu Borthakur (Supra) and also taking note of the consensus arrived at the bar, the impugned order dated 20.04.2024 is hereby interfered with and set aside. It is directed that the respondent No.3 i.e. the Superintendent of Central Goods and Service Tax, Bhalukpung Range will intimate the petitioner the total outstanding statutory dues, if any, standing in the name of the petitioner till the date of cancellation of GST registration. Upon such payment of statutory dues under GST by the petitioner, the respondent authorities will pass appropriate orders to revoke the cancellation of GST registration and thereby, restore the GST registration of the petitioner.
Page No.# 4/4
With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of. Parties to bear their own cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.