Pitchaiah Venkateshperumal vs. The Superintendent Of CGST And C.Excise

Held

The Court decided to follow its consistent practice in identical circumstances, as laid down in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others. The Court held that the benefit extended in that case, which involved directions for revival of registration, should be extended to the present petitioner. The reasoning is based on the consistent view of this Court and the acceptance of this view by the Revenue, as evidenced by the absence of appeals against such orders. The operative directions issued in the Suguna Cutpiece case, which include filing pending returns, paying defaulted tax with interest, penalties, and fees, and making payments in cash (not from Input Tax Credit), were applied. The registration is to be revived forthwith upon compliance. Any unutilized Input Tax Credit will be subject to scrutiny and approval by the competent officer before it can be utilized for future tax liability. The respondents are also directed to take steps to enable the filing of returns and payment of taxes through the GST portal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Pitchaiah Venkateshprumal, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of his GSTN registration by the Superintendent of CGST & C.Excise, Madurai North East Range. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file Goods and Services Tax monthly returns for six continuous months, as per Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner claimed ignorance of the cancellation due to personal medical ailments requiring bed rest, with business operations and statutory compliances managed by staff and a part-time accountant. An appeal filed before the appellate authority was rejected as time-barred. The petitioner sought to quash the cancellation order and revoke the registration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GSTN registration due to non-filing of returns for six continuous months, under Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of personal hardship and lack of awareness. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the cancellation was illegal and arbitrary due to the proprietor's severe medical condition, which prevented him from overseeing statutory compliances. The business was managed by staff, and a part-time accountant handled GST filings. The petitioner only became aware of the cancellation when informed by other taxpayers. The appeal was rejected on limitation grounds, necessitating this writ petition. Respondent's arguments: The respondent, the Superintendent of CGST & C.Excise, initiated the cancellation based on the statutory provision for non-filing of returns. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the respondent regarding the petitioner's medical condition or the rejection of the appeal on limitation, other than implicitly supporting the cancellation order.