Tvl. G.R.L.Logistics vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Held

The Court held that in identical circumstances, it had consistently followed the directions issued in the case of *Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others*. The Court noted that the revenue had not challenged these prior orders, implying acceptance of the established view. Therefore, the Court decided to extend the benefit granted in the *Suguna Cutpiece Centre* case to the present petitioner. The Court allowed the writ petition on the same terms as stipulated in paragraph 229 of the *Suguna Cutpiece Centre* order. These terms included directions for the petitioner to file pending returns and pay tax, interest, fine, and fees within 45 days, with specific conditions regarding the utilization of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The registration was to be revived forthwith upon compliance. The respondents were directed to take steps to enable the petitioner to file returns and pay dues, and this exercise was to be completed within 30 days.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. G.R.L.Logistics, approached the High Court seeking to quash an order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Kovilpatti - 1 Circle, which cancelled the petitioner's GSTIN. 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 contended that in similar circumstances, this Court had granted relief, and the revenue had not challenged those orders. The respondents argued that the appellate authority was bound by the prescribed limitations and that the rejection of the appeal was legally sustainable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GSTIN by the Commercial Tax Officer is legally sustainable, considering the petitioner's claim of unawareness and the subsequent rejection of appeal on limitation grounds? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under GST law). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the GSTIN cancellation and that their appeal was rejected solely on limitation. They relied on a batch of cases, specifically *Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others*, where this Court provided directions for revival of registration in similar situations. They further contended that this Court's consistent view in subsequent cases, which the revenue has not challenged, should be followed. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the appellate authority correctly applied the prescribed limitations and that the rejection of the appeal beyond the period of limitation was legally valid. They maintained that they are bound by statutory limitations.