Sanjoy Nath vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors
Held
The Court held that the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration was based on Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, for non-furnishing of returns for a continuous period of six months or more. The Court referred to the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017, which allows for the dropping of proceedings and passing of an order in Form GST REG-20 if the person furnishes all pending returns and makes full payment of tax dues, along with applicable interest and late fee. The Court found that the petitioner was ready and willing to comply with these conditions. Therefore, the Court concluded that the empowered officer has the authority and jurisdiction to drop the proceedings and pass an order in the prescribed form if the petitioner fulfills these requirements. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction for the petitioner to approach the concerned authority within two months seeking restoration of his GST registration, and if he complies with the requirements of the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22, the authority shall consider the application for restoration in accordance with law and take necessary steps expeditiously.
Facts
The petitioner, Sanjoy Nath, a sole proprietor registered under the CGST Act, 2017, had his GST registration (Registration no. 18AMNPN3159NIZA) cancelled by an order dated 11.08.2022. The cancellation was based on a show cause notice dated 08.07.2022, alleging non-furnishing of returns for a continuous period of six or more months, as per Section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner submitted a reply on 08.08.2022 and appeared for a hearing. The impugned order was passed by the Superintendent, CGST, Bongaigaon-4, Assam, under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner contended that non-furnishing of returns was due to reasons beyond his control and expressed willingness to comply with the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22.
Key Issues
1. Whether the GST registration of the petitioner, cancelled under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 for non-furnishing of returns for a continuous period of six months or more, can be restored if the petitioner furnishes all pending returns and makes full payment of tax dues, along with applicable interest and late fee, as per the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that due to reasons beyond his control, he could not submit the required returns for approximately six months or more. He expressed his readiness and willingness to comply with all formalities stipulated in the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state.
Sections Cited
Section 39, Section 29(2)(c), Rule 22, Rule 22(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
2023
Heard Mr. J. Roy, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Saha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. B.N. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, GST for all the respondents.
It is the case of the petitioner that he is the sole proprietor of a firm in his name and he got himself registered as a dea
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.