Jeyamani Raj vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, extending the benefit granted in the case of Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others to the petitioner. The operative directions from the Suguna Cutpiece case were adopted, which include the petitioner filing all pending returns prior to cancellation, along with payment of tax, interest, fine, and fees for the defaulted period. Such payments are to be made in cash and not adjusted from Input Tax Credit (ITC). Any unutilized ITC will require 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 periods subsequent to cancellation, with payments in cash. The respondents are directed to impose necessary restrictions to prevent undue passing of ITC and bill trading. Upon compliance, the registration shall be revived forthwith. The respondents are also to instruct the GST Network to make necessary changes to the portal to allow filing of returns and payment of dues. These steps are to be completed within thirty days of receiving the order. No costs were awarded.

Facts

The petitioner, Jeyamani Raj, proprietor of M/s. Pearl Enterprises, filed a writ petition seeking to revoke the cancellation of their GST registration. The cancellation was ordered by the State Tax Officer (ST) on December 30, 2021, due to the petitioner failing to file GST returns for six months. The petitioner contended that this failure was due to ill-health and prevented them from filing an appeal within the stipulated time. The petitioner sought directions to restore their GST registration, referencing a previous High Court order in a batch of similar cases.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's GST registration, cancelled for non-filing of returns for six months, should be revoked and restored, considering the petitioner's plea of ill-health preventing timely appeal filing? The petitioner argued that due to ill-health, they were unable to file returns for six months and consequently could not file an appeal within the prescribed time. 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 restoring registrations in similar circumstances. The respondents, represented by the Government Advocate, did not present any specific arguments against the petitioner's plea or the applicability of the cited precedent. The judgment does not record any submissions made by the respondents.