Ramar Andavar vs. The Assistant Commissioner (Circle)

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, extending the benefit granted in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others to the petitioner. This precedent involved directions for the revival of GST registration. The core of the decision in Suguna Cutpiece was that petitioners should file all pending returns prior to cancellation, pay defaulted tax along with interest, and any applicable fine or fee. Crucially, payments could not be made from Input Tax Credit (ITC) and any remaining ITC would be subject to scrutiny and approval by a competent officer before it could be utilized for future tax liabilities. The respondents were also directed to impose restrictions to prevent bill trading and ensure the registration stands revived forthwith upon compliance. The Court noted that the Revenue had consistently accepted this view by not filing appeals in similar matters. The operative direction was to order the writ petition on the same terms as specified in paragraph 229 of the Suguna Cutpiece order.

Facts

The petitioner, Ramar Andavar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 25.05.2022 by the Assistant Commissioner (Circle), Thirupparankundram Assessment Circle, which cancelled the petitioner's GSTN Registration No.33BMFPA8619B1ZK. 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 cancellation was effective from 31.12.2021. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the non-filing of returns was due to health issues, and consequently, the petitioner could not file an application for revocation of the cancellation within the stipulated time.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration is liable to be quashed, considering the petitioner's failure to file returns due to health issues and inability to file a timely revocation application? (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 the cancellation was arbitrary and illegal due to health reasons preventing return filing. They relied on a previous High Court order in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others (batch), which provided directions for revival of registration in similar circumstances, and noted that the Revenue had not appealed such orders. The petitioner sought to extend the benefit of this precedent. Respondent's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Respondent (The Assistant Commissioner).