Tvl. A Sdm Residency vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, extending the benefit previously granted in the case of Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others. The Court noted that there has been a consistent view taken in similar matters, and the revenue has not challenged these orders, implying they have attained finality. Therefore, the Court decided to follow the precedent set in the Suguna Cutpiece case. The operative directions from the Suguna Cutpiece order were applied, which included directions for the petitioner to file pending returns, pay defaulted tax along with interest and penalties, and for the respondents to revive the registration forthwith upon compliance. The Court also specified that Input Tax Credit (ITC) could not be used for these payments and that any remaining ITC would be subject to scrutiny and approval by the competent authority. The respondents were also directed to take steps to enable the petitioner to file returns and pay dues through the GST portal.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. A SDM Residency, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated January 24, 2023, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (2nd Respondent), which had the effect of cancelling the petitioner's GSTIN (33ABIFA9538J1Z5) from January 31, 2022. The petitioner claimed to be unaware of the cancellation until informed by other taxpayers. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which was rejected on the grounds of being filed beyond the period of limitation. The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the cancellation and that their appeal was rejected solely on limitation grounds.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief despite their appeal being rejected by the appellate authority on the ground of limitation, considering their claim of unawareness of the GST registration cancellation? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the cancellation of their GST registration and that their appeal was rejected solely on the ground of limitation. They relied on a previous judgment of this Court in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others (batch), which provided directions for similar situations. They also cited several other consistent judgments of this Court that followed the Suguna Cutpiece order. Revenue's Contention: The Special Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that the appellate authority is bound by the prescribed limitations and therefore, the rejection of the appeal beyond the period of limitation is legally sustainable.