M/S Saraswathi Enterprises vs. Joint/ Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax

Heard Shri Shashwath S. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri Shishira Amarnath, learned HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31475 counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. Jyoti M. Maradi, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents No.2 and 3. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: The petitioner obtains GST registration on 17.12.2020. After registering C.C.No.90/2023, the petitioner is taken into custody and he is remanded to judicial custody. During the subsistence of the custody of the petitioner, it transpires a show cause notice is issued to the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes seeking to show cause as to why his registration should not be cancelled on account of non furnishing of GST returns for more than six months. Another notice is issued by the Joint Commissioner of Central GST under Section 74(1) of CGST Act, 2017 and under 142(1) of the GST Rules. On 19.02.2024, the GST registration of the petitioner is cancelled. Long thereafter, on 27.08.2024, the petitioner is released from judicial custody. On his release submits a representation to the Assistant Commissioner with a request for approval for revocation of the cancelled GST registration. On 02.10.2024, an application seeking condonation of delay in HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31475 filing the revocation of application comes to be rejected. The rejection of which has driven the petitioner to this court in the subject petition.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the proceedings taken up against the petitioner was for the purpose of cancellation of GST and cancellation of GST was on the ground that no GST returns had been filed during the period 2023-2024. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was in custody in C.C.No.90/2023 at that period. The moment he comes out from custody he had made efforts to get the cancellation revoked.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the cancellation of GST has happened and the petitioner has to avail of such remedy, as is available in law. The petitioner could have got the GST returns filed, he has not so done. Therefore, the order does not warrant any interference. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31475

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material available on record.

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The cancellation of registration is as follows: To SUBRAMANIAN PALANI VELAN No 76 3rd Cross, Pampanagar Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka, 560022 GSTIN/LIN:29BROPS63651HIZU Application Reference Number (ARN): AA290224025252M

Kindly refer to the supportive document(s) attached for case specific details.

It may be noted that a registered person furnishing return under sub-section (1) of section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017 is required to furnish a final return in FORM GSTR-10 within three months of the date of this order.

You are required to furnish all your pending returns.

It may be noted that the cancellation of registration shall not affect the liability to pay tax and other dues under this Act or to discharge any obligation under this Act or the rules made thereunder for any period prior to the date of cancellation whether or not such tax and other dues are determined before or after the date of cancellation." The cancellation is non furnishing of return of GST as obtaining under 39(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The order indicates that the petitioner has not furnished the final return and has neither furnished the pending returns. The order impugned of cancellation of registration is preceded by a show cause notice. The show cause notice is issued for the reason that the petitioner has not filed his return. The return was impossible to file, as the petitioner was in judicial custody during the period in which it is alleged that the petitioner had failed to file his return. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31475

In the light of impossibility of the petitioner to file his returns owing to his judicial custody, the application seeking revocation of the cancellation of registration ought to have been answered favorably by the respondent, but the respondent has declined to accept.

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the application seeking restoration of GST filed by the petitioner, expeditiously.

Till such time, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. On restoration of the certification, it is open for the respondents to regulate its procedure to take the issue further.