Tvl.Velmani Crusher vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Held

The Court held that it would follow its consistent practice in similar cases, specifically referencing the directions issued in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others. The Court found that the Revenue/Department had accepted this view by not filing appeals in those matters. Therefore, the benefit extended in the Suguna Cutpiece Centre case was extended to the present petitioner. The writ petition was ordered on the same terms as mentioned in paragraph 229 of the Suguna Cutpiece Centre order. This implies that the petitioner would be directed to file pending returns, pay outstanding tax, interest, fine, and fees, with specific conditions regarding the use of Input Tax Credit, and upon compliance, the registration would be revived. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Velmani Crusher, represented by its partner, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated May 17, 2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Circle), Theni-II, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration, effective December 31, 2021. The cancellation was due to the petitioner's failure to file GSTR-3B returns for six months. The petitioner contended that due to ill-health and severe financial crisis, there were no business transactions, leading to the non-filing of returns. The petitioner also stated that they were unable to file an appeal against the cancellation order. The petitioner sought directions to revoke the cancellation and restore their GSTIN.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns for six months, due to ill-health and financial crisis, warrants intervention by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief granted in similar circumstances by this Court in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that due to ill-health and financial crisis, they failed to furnish returns for six months, leading to the cancellation of their GST registration. They were unable to file an appeal against this order. They relied on the directions issued by this Court in the batch of cases led by Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece, which provided a mechanism for revival of registration under similar circumstances. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the respondents are the authorities who passed the impugned order of cancellation.