Navi Infra Solutions vs. Superintendent Of Central Tax

Held

The Court did not decide the merits of the cancellation order directly. Instead, it granted the petitioner liberty to file an application under Section 30 of the GST and APGST Act seeking revocation of the cancelled registration within two weeks of receiving the order. The Court directed the 1st respondent to consider this application in light of the returns already submitted by the petitioner and to pass an appropriate order expeditiously, within one week of receiving the application. The Court did not make any findings on the validity of the cancellation itself, leaving the decision to the designated authority upon the filing of the revocation application. The issue of whether the subsequent filing of returns cured the defect for cancellation was implicitly left for the 1st respondent to consider.

Facts

The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled by the 1st respondent on 28.02.2023, on the grounds of failing to furnish returns for four consecutive months prior to cancellation. The petitioner, represented by counsel, submitted that after the cancellation, they had uploaded returns for December 2022, January 2023, and February 2023, as evidenced by a screenshot of the official website dated 07.10.2023. The respondents were represented by learned counsel for CBIC and the Deputy Solicitor General of India.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration was justified given the subsequent filing of returns? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on the interpretation and application of provisions related to GST registration cancellation and return filing). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that despite the cancellation, they had subsequently filed the pending returns for December 2022, January 2023, and February 2023, implying that the ground for cancellation might be addressed. They relied on the fact that these returns were uploaded to the official portal. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not explicitly record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state. However, the initial action of cancelling the registration was based on the failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of four months.