Chellappa Chokkalingam vs. The Assistant Commissioner (Circle)

Held

The Court held that in identical circumstances, this Court, in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others, had issued specific directions for the revival of GST registration. These directions included the petitioner filing all pending returns prior to cancellation, paying the tax due along with interest, and paying any applicable fine or fee. It was clarified that Input Tax Credit (ITC) could not be used for these payments, and any existing ITC would require scrutiny and approval by a competent officer before utilization for future liabilities. The Court noted that this precedent has been consistently followed in subsequent decisions and accepted by the Revenue. Therefore, the Court decided to extend the benefit granted in the Suguna Cutpiece Centre case to the present petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, Chellappa Chokkalingam, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 10.01.2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Circle), Palayamkottai Assessment Circle, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file Goods and Services Tax monthly returns for a continuous period of six months, as per Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner submitted that non-filing was due to health issues. A show cause notice was issued on 30.12.2021, followed by the cancellation order. The petitioner was unable to file an application for revocation within the prescribed time.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration under Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for continuous non-filing of returns for six months, is sustainable when the non-filing was due to genuine health issues and the petitioner could not file a revocation application in time? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the non-filing of returns was due to health reasons and that they were unable to file the revocation application within the stipulated time. They relied on the consistent view of this Court in similar cases. Respondent's contention: The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, agreed with the petitioner's counsel that the matter should be decided based on previous judgments of this Court in identical circumstances.