M/S.Sree Visagan Construction vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Held

The Court decided to follow its consistent practice in similar cases, particularly the directions issued in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others. The Court found that the revenue/department had also accepted this view by not filing appeals in those matters. Therefore, the benefit extended in the Suguna Cutpiece Centre case was extended to the petitioner. This implies that the petitioner will be permitted to file the pending returns and pay the requisite tax, interest, fine, and fees. The Court directed that the registration shall stand revived upon compliance with these conditions, mirroring the operative directions from the Suguna Cutpiece case, which included filing returns, paying tax, interest, fine/fee, and allowing for the utilization of Input Tax Credit after scrutiny. The specific amount in dispute was not detailed, nor was the exact period for which returns were not filed, beyond the general statement of six months.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Sree Visagan Construction, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration, which was effective from 31.05.2019. The cancellation was based on the failure to file GST monthly returns for six consecutive months, as per Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner claimed unawareness of the cancellation due to medical ailments and subsequent treatment, with business operations and statutory compliances managed by staff and a part-time accountant. The petitioner learned of the cancellation when informed by other taxpayers. An appeal filed before the appellate authority was rejected on grounds of being time-barred. The petitioner sought to quash the cancellation order and revive its GST registration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration is liable to be quashed due to the petitioner's medical condition and subsequent inability to file returns, despite the appeal being filed beyond the limitation period? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017 and principles of natural justice). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that its failure to file returns was due to a genuine medical emergency, leading to a lack of awareness of the cancellation. They relied on the principle that genuine hardship should be considered and sought relief similar to that granted in previous cases with identical circumstances. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents did not explicitly present arguments against the petitioner's plea for condonation of delay or revival of registration. However, the rejection of the appeal by the appellate authority on limitation grounds indicates the respondents' stance on adherence to procedural timelines.