Ayyanathan Gnanasekaran vs. The Superintendent Of CGST And C.Excise

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, along with the defaulted tax, interest, fine, and fees, within 45 days of receiving the order. It was clarified that these payments could not be made or adjusted from any unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC). Any remaining ITC would require scrutiny and approval by a competent officer before it could be utilized for future tax liabilities. 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 permitted to impose restrictions to prevent undue passing of ITC or bill trading. Upon compliance, the registration was to be revived forthwith. The respondents were also directed to take steps to enable the petitioner to file returns and pay dues through the GST portal within 30 days. The Court noted that the revenue had accepted the view in Suguna Cutpiece by not filing appeals in similar matters.

Facts

The petitioner, Ayyanathan Gnanasekaran, proprietor of M/s. Chennai SAFIRE PRINTERS, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of his GST registration by the Superintendent of CGST & C.Excise, Sivakasi. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file monthly GST returns for a continuous period of six months, as per Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, business transactions decreased, office staff were restricted, and he was severely affected by viral fever, preventing timely filing of returns and appeals. The petitioner sought to quash the cancellation order and direct the respondent to revoke it.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns for six months, under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed on grounds of extenuating circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic and personal illness. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the failure to file returns was due to unavoidable reasons including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on business and staff, coupled with his personal illness. He relied on a previous judgment of this Court in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others, which allowed similar petitions under analogous circumstances by providing specific directions for revival of registration. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state.