Tvl. Sadhana Groceries vs. The Commercial Of CGST And Central Excise

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, extending the benefit of the directions issued in the case of Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others. The Court noted that there was a consistent view taken in similar matters, and the revenue had not challenged these orders, implying they had attained finality. Therefore, the Court intended to follow the established precedent. The operative directions from the Suguna Cutpiece case, which included filing pending returns and paying tax, interest, fine, and fees within 45 days, with specific conditions regarding Input Tax Credit (ITC) utilization and payment in cash for subsequent periods, were applied. The registration was to stand revived forthwith upon compliance. The respondents were directed to take steps to enable the petitioner to file returns and pay dues, and this exercise was to be completed within 30 days. No costs were imposed.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Sadhana Groceries, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated 21.02.2023 cancelling its GST registration and to direct the respondents (Commercial Tax Officer and Superintendent of CGST) to revoke the cancellation. The petitioner claimed it was unaware of the cancellation until informed by other taxpayers. Subsequently, it filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which was rejected on the grounds of being filed beyond the period of limitation. The petitioner argued that in similar circumstances, this Court had issued specific directions to allow revocation of cancellation, subject to certain conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's GST registration, cancelled by the respondents, should be revoked, considering the appeal was rejected due to being filed beyond the limitation period? The petitioner contended that it was unaware of the cancellation and that the appellate authority's rejection based solely on limitation was unjust. It relied on the consistent view of this Court in similar cases, specifically citing the directions issued in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others (W.P.Nos.25048, 25877, 12738 of 2021 etc... batch), dated 31.01.2022, which provided a mechanism for revival of registration upon compliance with certain conditions. The respondents argued that the appellate authority was bound by the prescribed limitations and that its order rejecting the appeal as time-barred was legally sustainable. They did not present any counter-argument against the petitioner's reliance on the Suguna Cutpiece case.