Tvl. Ravichandran Saravanan 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 it had consistently followed the directions issued in the Suguna Cutpiece case, and the Revenue Department had accepted this view by not filing appeals in similar matters. The operative directions from the Suguna Cutpiece case were applied, which included conditions for the petitioner to file all pending returns, pay defaulted tax along with interest, and pay any applicable fine or fee. The Court also stipulated that payments could not be made from Input Tax Credit (ITC) and that any remaining ITC would be subject to scrutiny. The petitioner was also required to pay GST and file returns for the period subsequent to cancellation in cash. Upon compliance, the registration was to be revived forthwith. The respondents were directed to take steps to enable the petitioner to file returns and make payments, and this exercise was to be completed within thirty days.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Ravichandran Saravanan, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Circle), Commercial Tax Office, Aruppukottai, which cancelled the petitioner's GSTIN registration. The cancellation was due to the petitioner failing to file GST returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner contended that this failure was due to health issues, and although returns were subsequently filed belatedly up to October 2019, they could not file an appeal within the stipulated time under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GSTIN registration by the Assistant Commissioner was justified given the circumstances of non-filing of returns due to health issues and subsequent belated filing. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief in light of previous High Court judgments that have dealt with similar situations. The petitioner argued that their failure to file returns was due to health reasons and that they had subsequently filed the pending returns. They relied on the principle of leniency and the directions issued in similar cases by the High Court. The respondents, represented by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the Assistant Commissioner, did not explicitly record any arguments in the judgment, but their action of cancelling the registration formed the basis of the challenge.