Aastha Alumina Private Limited vs. Superintendent Of Central Tax And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Aastha Alumina Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The cancellation was based on the ground of non-filing of returns. The Superintendent of Central Tax, Range-VI, Park Street Division, and other CGST authorities are the respondents. The specific tax periods for which returns were not filed and the exact amount of revenue due are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history involves the petitioner challenging the cancellation order, which was presumably upheld by an appellate authority before reaching the High Court.

Held

The Court set aside the impugned adjudication order and the order of the appellate authority. The Court directed the respondent authority to intimate the petitioner within three days about the revenue due, if any, for the restoration of its registration. If revenue is due, the respondent authority is to open the GST portal for 30 days to allow the petitioner to make the payment. The petitioner has agreed to pay the revenue due for restoration. If the petitioner fails to make the payment within 30 days of the portal opening, the respondent authority is free to close the portal and take steps for recovery. The ratio is that a taxpayer should be given an opportunity to rectify non-compliance leading to registration cancellation, especially when willing to pay dues, before final recovery action is taken.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration on the ground of non-filing of returns was justified, considering the petitioner's willingness to rectify the non-compliance? (Question of law and fact, turning on the provisions related to registration cancellation and restoration under the CGST Act). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued for the restoration of its registration, indicating a willingness to pay any outstanding revenue due. The judgment implies that the petitioner sought an opportunity to rectify the non-filing of returns. Revenue's Contention: The CGST authority's stance is implied by their role in cancelling the registration due to non-filing of returns. Their argument would likely be based on the statutory provisions allowing for cancellation in such circumstances.