Santanu Mondal vs. The Superintendent,Central Goods And Servicetax And Ors

Held

The High Court held that the appellate authority had solely proceeded on the ground of limitation, without touching upon the crucial facts that the appellant had filed returns and remitted tax and interest. The Court found that the order rejecting the application for revocation of cancellation was a single-line order stating non-reply to a show cause notice, despite the appellant having filed returns prior to the revocation application. Therefore, the Court was of the considered view that the matter should be remanded back to the original authority for fresh consideration. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the writ petition order, the appellate authority's order, and the original authority's order dated February 3, 2021. The application for revocation of cancellation of registration was revived before the Assistant Commissioner, who was directed to afford an opportunity of personal hearing, consider the filed returns and remitted dues, and pass a fresh order on merits within six weeks.

Facts

The appellant, Santanu Mondal, filed an intra-court appeal against a High Court order that upheld the rejection of his application for restoration of GST registration. The registration was cancelled on November 29, 2019. The appellant filed an application for revocation of cancellation on December 16, 2020. The Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Asansol-I Division, rejected this application on February 3, 2021, stating it was filed beyond the statutory period. The appellate authority, the Additional Commissioner of CGST, Siliguri Appellate Commissionerate, also rejected the appellant's appeal. The appellant had filed GSTR-3B returns up to November 2019 and remitted tax and interest. The order rejecting the revocation application stated the assessee had not replied to a show cause notice dated January 13, 2021.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the rejection of the appellant's application for restoration of GST registration solely on the ground of limitation, without considering the returns filed and tax/interest remitted by the appellant? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and relevant GST provisions). Petitioner's Arguments: The appellant contended that the cancellation of registration violated the principles of natural justice. He argued that the authorities ought to have considered the returns filed and the tax and interest remitted, even if belatedly. The appellant's application for revocation was filed after the stipulated period, but he had filed returns and remitted dues prior to the rejection order. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the revenue or respondents. However, the orders under challenge were based on the application being filed beyond the stipulated period and the appellant not replying to a show cause notice.