Chelliah Meenambigai vs. The Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise

Held

The Court held that there is a consistent view taken in similar matters, and the revenue has not challenged these previous orders, which have thus attained finality. The Court noted that it has consistently followed the directions issued in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others. The revenue's acceptance of this view, evidenced by the lack of appeals against such orders, led the Court to follow its own precedent. Consequently, the Court decided to extend the benefit granted in the earlier orders to the present petitioner. The writ petition was allowed on the same terms as stipulated in paragraph 229 of the Suguna Cutpiece Centre judgment, directing the respondents to take suitable steps for the revival of the petitioner's GST registration, subject to the conditions outlined in that order, including filing of returns, payment of taxes, interest, fine, and fees.

Facts

The petitioner, Chelliah Meenambigai, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated 21.11.2019 cancelling their GST registration (GSTIN: 33BTSPM3665D1ZH) and to direct the respondents (Commercial Tax Officer of CGST and Central Excise and the Superintendent) to revoke the cancellation. The petitioner claimed they were unaware of the cancellation until informed by other taxpayers. Subsequently, an appeal filed before the appellate authority was rejected on the grounds of being beyond the period of limitation. The petitioner relied on previous High Court judgments where similar issues were addressed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration, when the petitioner claims unawareness and the appeal was rejected on limitation, warrants intervention by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly in light of previous High Court pronouncements? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the cancellation and that their appeal was rejected solely on the ground of limitation. They relied on a batch of writ petitions in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others, dated 31.01.2022, where this Court provided specific directions for revival of registration in similar circumstances. They also cited subsequent consistent decisions following this precedent. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that the appellate authority was bound by the prescribed limitations and therefore, the rejection of the appeal as being beyond the period of limitation was legally sustainable.