Tvl. Ahash Promoters vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, extending the benefit granted in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece. The petitioner was directed to file all returns for the period prior to the cancellation, along with any outstanding tax, interest, fine, and fees for belated filing, within forty-five days of receiving the order. Payments were to be made in cash and not adjusted from Input Tax Credit (ITC). Any existing ITC would require scrutiny and approval by a competent officer before utilization for future tax liabilities. The petitioner was also to file GST and pay tax for the period subsequent to cancellation, with payments in cash. The respondents were directed to impose necessary restrictions to prevent undue passing of ITC or bill trading. Upon payment of dues and uploading of returns, the registration was to be revived forthwith. The respondents were also to instruct GST Network to make necessary changes to the web portal to allow filing and payment. This entire exercise was to be completed within thirty days of receiving the order. The Court noted that the Revenue Department had accepted this view in previous matters by not filing appeals.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.AHASH PROMOTERS, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 14, 2023, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai Rural (East) Circle, cancelling its GSTIN registration. The cancellation was effective from October 1, 2022, due to the petitioner's failure to file returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner contended that health issues prevented them from filing returns and consequently from filing an appeal within the stipulated time. The petitioner sought to quash the cancellation order and direct the respondents to revoke the cancellation of their GSTIN.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GSTIN registration due to non-filing of returns for six months, where the petitioner cites health issues as a reason for non-compliance and inability to file a timely appeal, warrants intervention by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that due to health issues, they were unable to file GST monthly returns for six consecutive months. This inability also prevented them from filing an appeal within the time prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. They relied on previous High Court judgments in similar circumstances, specifically citing Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others, which provided a framework for relief in such cases. Revenue's argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Revenue Department).