Sri Amman Marbles vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to revoke the cancellation of the petitioner's GSTIN and restore the same. The Court followed its consistent practice established in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others, and subsequent similar judgments. The operative directions are the same as those laid down in paragraph 229 of the Suguna Cutpiece Centre order. These directions include the petitioner filing all prior unfiled returns along with payment of tax, interest, fine, and fees within 45 days, with the caveat that such payments cannot be made from Input Tax Credit (ITC). Any unutilized ITC will be subject to scrutiny and approval by a competent officer before it can be used for future liabilities. The petitioner must also pay GST and file returns for the period subsequent to cancellation, with payments made in cash. The respondents are to take steps to ensure the GST portal allows filing and payment, and the entire exercise is to be completed within 30 days of receiving the order. The Court noted that the Revenue/Department had accepted the view in Suguna Cutpiece Centre by not filing appeals in those matters.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Sri Amman Marbles, represented by its partner, filed a writ petition seeking to revoke the cancellation of its GSTIN. The cancellation was ordered by the State Tax Officer (Circle) on March 17, 2022, due to the petitioner failing to file GSTR 3B returns for six months. The petitioner contended that this failure was due to ill-health and severe financial crisis, leading to no business transactions. The petitioner also stated they were unable to file an appeal against the cancellation order. The petitioner relied on previous High Court judgments where similar directions were issued for the revival of GST registration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration by the State Tax Officer on March 17, 2022, for non-filing of GSTR 3B returns for six months, is liable to be revoked and the registration restored, considering the petitioner's explanation of ill-health and financial crisis. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that due to ill-health and financial crisis, they could not conduct business and consequently failed to file returns. They further submitted that they were unable to file an appeal against the cancellation order. They relied on the High Court's decision in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others, which provided a framework for reviving GST registrations in similar circumstances, and subsequent consistent rulings by the Court. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.