M/S Ainapur Traders vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals)

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition in part. It quashed the order dated 21.02.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent (Superintendent of Central Tax and Central Excise, Nippani-I Range), which was the basis for the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration. Consequently, the respondents were directed to restore the GST registration of the petitioner forthwith. The Court further directed that the petitioner must file the pending GST returns, which the respondents shall accept, subject to the petitioner paying all outstanding dues. The respondents were to proceed further in accordance with law after the payment of dues and filing of returns. The ratio decidendi is that when co-ordinate benches of the High Court have granted relief in similar circumstances of GST registration cancellation for non-filing of returns, the same relief should be extended to the present petitioner, provided they comply with the conditions of filing pending returns and clearing dues.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Ainapur Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Central GST and Central Excise, Belagavi (Respondent No. 1), which upheld an earlier order dated 21.02.2023 passed by the Superintendent of Central Tax and Central Excise (Appeals), Nippani-I Range (Respondent No. 2). The petitioner's GST registration bearing No. 29AYIPA6334P1ZY was cancelled for non-filing of GST returns. The petitioner sought to quash both impugned orders and to revive and restore their GST registration. The petitioner argued that their GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns, and despite the appeal being rejected, similar relief had been granted by co-ordinate benches of the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the GST registration of the petitioner, M/s. Ainapur Traders, bearing No. 29AYIPA6334P1ZY, should be revived and restored, considering its cancellation for non-filing of GST returns and the subsequent rejection of their appeal. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that their GST registration was cancelled due to non-filing of GST returns. They relied on decisions of co-ordinate benches of the High Court in Sri. KOLAPUDI ENOCH WASHINGTON Vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS and DEEPAK VASUDE ASRANI CHUGH HUF Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF GST, where similar relief was granted to petitioners facing cancellation of registration for non-filing of returns. Respondents' contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.