Sanjay Kumar vs. The Principal Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Exicse

Held

The Court held that the writ application should be disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P.(T) No. 1009 of 2023. The Court noted that Notification No. 3 of 2023, issued by the CBIC, provides a beneficial opportunity for registered persons whose GST registration was cancelled under Section 29(2)(b) or (c) of the CGST Act on or before 31st December 2022, to apply for revocation of cancellation up to 30th June 2023. This is subject to furnishing all due returns and paying any amounts due as tax, interest, penalty, and late fees. The notification also covers cases where appeals against cancellation orders were rejected on grounds of time limitation. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the proper officer with an application for revocation of cancellation by 30th June 2023, complying with the conditions prescribed in the notification. The Court clarified that the impugned order of cancellation and any affirmed order in appeal would not impede the proper officer's consideration of the revocation application.

Facts

The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar, proprietor of M/s. Project Equipment and Construction Company, sought to quash an order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the Superintendent CGST & CX, Bokaro (Respondent No. 2). This order cancelled the petitioner's GST registration for failure to furnish returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner contended that a similar matter, W.P.(T) No. 1009 of 2023, was disposed of in terms of a specific notification, and this case also falls under its purview. The respondents did not dispute this contention. The petitioner further highlighted Notification No. 3 of 2023 dated 31.03.2023 issued by the CBIC, Directorate of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's GST registration, cancelled under Section 29(2)(b) or (c) of the CGST Act, 2017, can be revoked beyond the statutory period, considering Notification No. 3 of 2023 dated 31.03.2023? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that their case is similar to W.P.(T) No. 1009 of 2023, which was disposed of in terms of Notification No. 3 of 2023. They contended that this notification provides a beneficial window for revocation of cancelled registrations, even if appeals were rejected on grounds of time limitation, and that their case falls within the ambit of this notification. Revenue's argument: The respondents did not dispute the petitioner's contentions regarding the applicability of the aforementioned notification and the disposal order in the similar writ petition.