M/S Bj Builders vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Held

The Court held that it would follow its consistent view in similar matters, as evidenced by the numerous orders passed in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others, and subsequent cases that have followed the same precedent. The Court noted that the revenue has not challenged these prior orders, indicating their acceptance. Therefore, the benefit extended in the Suguna Cutpiece case would be extended to the petitioner. The Court ordered that the writ petition be allowed on the same terms mentioned in paragraph 229 of the Suguna Cutpiece Centre's order. These terms include directions for the petitioner to file pending returns and pay outstanding taxes, interest, and penalties within 45 days, with specific conditions regarding the utilization of Input Tax Credit and payment in cash for subsequent periods. The respondents were directed to revive the registration forthwith upon compliance and take steps to enable the filing of returns and payment through the GST portal within 30 days.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s BJ Builders, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated 04.03.2022 passed by the State Tax Officer (Circle), Nanguneri, which rejected their request to revoke the cancellation of their GSTN registration (No. 33AAMFB9051E1ZL). The petitioner claimed they were unaware of the cancellation until informed by another establishment. The impugned order was passed on the grounds that the request for revocation was beyond the period of limitation. The petitioner argued that in similar circumstances, this Court had previously granted relief in batch matters, directing the revival of registration upon compliance with certain conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's GSTN registration cancellation can be revoked despite the request being made beyond the prescribed period of limitation, considering previous High Court pronouncements? The petitioner contended that the Court has consistently followed the directions issued in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others, allowing the revival of GST registration under specific conditions, even if the request falls outside the normal limitation period. They highlighted that the revenue has not challenged these prior orders, implying acceptance of the established view. The petitioner relied on the directions issued in the Suguna Cutpiece case, which stipulated conditions for filing pending returns, payment of taxes, interest, and penalties, and the utilization of Input Tax Credit. The respondent revenue argued that it is not open for the appellate authority to pass orders disregarding the limitations prescribed by law, and they are bound by these limitations. Therefore, the rejection of the request due to being beyond the period of limitation was legally sustainable.