Thiruvenkadam .R vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court held that in identical circumstances, where a petitioner fails to file GST returns due to genuine reasons and subsequently files the pending returns along with the requisite tax, interest, and penalties, the cancellation of registration should be revoked and the registration restored. The Court followed its own precedent in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others, and several other subsequent decisions. The reasoning is based on the principle of providing relief to assessees who demonstrate a willingness to comply with their statutory obligations, even if belatedly, and have faced genuine difficulties. The Court directed the petitioner to file all pending returns and pay the tax, interest, fine, and fees within 45 days, with specific conditions regarding the utilization of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The registration shall stand revived upon compliance. The respondent was directed to take steps to facilitate the filing of returns and payment of dues. The Court expressly followed the directions issued in the Suguna Cutpiece Centre case.

Facts

The petitioner, R. Thiruvenkadam, proprietor of Tvl. R R Associates, filed a writ petition seeking to revoke the cancellation of his GST registration. The respondent, Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palayamkottai Assessment Circle, had cancelled the petitioner's registration on 11.02.2022, effective from the same date, due to the failure to file GST returns from September 2021 onwards. The petitioner contended that due to health issues and family commitments, returns were not filed continuously. Subsequently, returns for the period up to February 2022 were filed belatedly on 31.03.2023. This delay prevented the petitioner from filing an appeal within the stipulated time.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns, when the returns are subsequently filed belatedly along with tax, interest, and penalties, warrants revocation and restoration of the registration, considering the petitioner's explanation for the delay. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of provisions related to cancellation of registration and the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing returns was due to genuine health and family reasons. They have since filed the pending returns and are willing to pay all accrued taxes, interest, and penalties. They relied on the consistent view of this Court in similar cases, such as Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others, where directions were issued for restoration of registration under similar circumstances. Respondent's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the respondent's action of cancelling the registration indicates their reliance on the statutory provisions empowering cancellation for non-filing of returns.