Green Park Restraurant vs. The The Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise

Held

The Court held that in identical circumstances, it had previously issued directions in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others (batch). These directions, followed consistently in subsequent cases and accepted by the Revenue, involved allowing petitioners to file pending returns and pay taxes, interest, fine, and fees within 45 days of receiving the order. Crucially, such payments could not be made from Input Tax Credit (ITC), and any existing ITC would remain unutilised until scrutinized and approved by a competent officer. Future tax liability could be discharged using approved ITC. The registration would stand revived upon payment and uploading of returns. The Court extended the benefit of these earlier orders to the present petitioner, ordering the writ petition on the same terms as laid out in paragraph 229 of the Suguna Cutpiece Centre judgment.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Green Park Restaurant, represented by its proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 14.01.2022 passed by the Superintendent, Tenkasi Assessment Circle, cancelling its 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 02.12.2021. The petitioner was unable to file an application for revocation of cancellation within the stipulated time.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns due to health issues, without timely revocation application, warrants intervention by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly in light of previous High Court judgments? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017 and principles of natural justice). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that non-filing was due to health reasons and that they were unable to file for revocation in time. They sought quashing of the cancellation order and revocation of their GSTIN. Respondents' contention: The respondents did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's plea for relief based on the established precedent. Instead, both parties agreed that the case should be decided in line with previous judgments of the High Court in similar circumstances.