Hinduja Constructions vs. Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court set aside the order of cancellation of registration dated 23.09.2023, issued by the 1st respondent. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's willingness to discharge all tax liabilities of her late husband and the fact that the taxes due had been paid. The Court found it appropriate to grant the petitioner an opportunity to regularize the GST compliance. The operative directions included setting aside the cancellation order, enabling the petitioner to access the account to verify past returns and file subsequent ones, allowing her to file returns in place of her husband, and permitting her to clear all tax dues. The petitioner was also directed to submit a death certificate. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner's late husband, who was registered under the GST Act, had his registration cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner on 28.07.2023, for non-furnishing of returns. An application for revocation was allowed on 26.08.2023, but the portal remained inaccessible for filing returns. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued on 05.09.2023, leading to a fresh cancellation of registration on 23.09.2023, again citing non-filing of returns. The petitioner's husband passed away on 25.06.2024. The petitioner, as the legal heir, sought to clear dues and file returns for her late husband. She approached the High Court seeking to set aside the cancellation order dated 23.09.2023, stating that taxes due had been paid and she was willing to discharge any remaining liabilities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order of cancellation of registration dated 23.09.2023, passed by the 1st respondent, is liable to be set aside, considering the subsequent death of the assessee and the petitioner's willingness to discharge tax liabilities? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner, as the legal heir, sought to regularize the GST compliance of her deceased husband. She contended that the taxes due had been paid and she was prepared to clear any outstanding dues. The primary grievance was the inability to access the portal to file returns, which led to the repeated cancellations. Respondent's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the context implies the respondents relied on the non-filing of returns as the basis for cancellation.