Rajendran Pari vs. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals)

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, extending the benefit granted in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others. The Court directed the petitioner to file all pending returns for the period prior to the cancellation of registration, along with the defaulted tax, interest, fine, and fees, within forty-five days from the receipt of the order. It was clarified that these payments could not be made from Input Tax Credit (ITC). Any unutilized ITC would remain unutilized until scrutinized and approved by a competent officer. Future tax liabilities could be discharged using only such approved ITC. The petitioner was also required to pay GST and file returns for the period subsequent to cancellation, with payments made in cash. The respondents were directed to impose necessary restrictions to prevent bill trading and undue passing of ITC. Upon payment and uploading of returns, the registration would stand revived forthwith. The respondents were also to instruct GST Network to make necessary changes to the portal to allow filing of returns and payment of dues. These steps were to be completed within thirty days of the order's receipt. No costs were awarded.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajendran Pari, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the cancellation of his GST registration and to restore it. The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled by the Superintendent of GST & C.Excise (2nd respondent) on 20.05.2022, effective from the same date, due to failure to file six or more GSTR-3B monthly returns. The petitioner appealed this cancellation to the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) (1st respondent), but the outcome of this appeal is not explicitly stated in the provided text, though the petitioner is challenging the order of the 1st respondent as well. The petitioner contended that due to health issues and family commitments, the returns were not filed, preventing him from filing an appeal within the stipulated time.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration is illegal and arbitrary, warranting its revocation and restoration, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the failure to file GST monthly returns was due to genuine health issues and family commitments. This inability to file returns also prevented him from filing an appeal within the time prescribed by the Act. The petitioner sought the revocation of the cancellation of his GSTN registration. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the cancellation order was passed by the Superintendent of GST & C.Excise for non-filing of returns, and the petitioner challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) as well.