Rathinam Ashokkumar 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. The Court noted that it has consistently followed the directions issued in the Suguna Cutpiece case, and the Revenue has accepted this view by not filing appeals in such matters. The operative directions from the Suguna Cutpiece case, which are to be followed here, include the petitioner filing all pending returns prior to cancellation, paying defaulted tax along with interest, fine, and fees for belated filing within 45 days. Such payments are not to be made 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 the period subsequent to cancellation in cash. The registration shall stand revived forthwith upon payment of tax, penalty, and uploading of returns. The respondents are directed to take steps to enable the petitioner to file returns and pay dues, and this exercise is to be completed within 30 days.

Facts

The petitioner, Rathinam Ashokkumar, proprietor of M/s. Nammalvar Rice Mill, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the cancellation of his GST registration by the State Tax Officer (ST) (Circle), Ettayapuram Assessment Circle, via an order dated 11.06.2019. The cancellation was due to the petitioner failing to file GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner explained that due to his uncle's ill-health, he was unable to manage the ancestral property and consequently failed to file returns within the stipulated time, which also prevented him from filing an appeal within the prescribed period.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration by the State Tax Officer, due to non-filing of returns for six months, is liable to be quashed and the registration revoked, considering the petitioner's explanation of ill-health preventing timely filing. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that due to his uncle's ill-health, he was unable to file returns for more than six months, which also led to him missing the deadline for filing an appeal. He relied on a previous judgment by this Court in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others (batch), which provided directions for similar circumstances. The petitioner argued that the consistent view of this Court in various subsequent cases, which the Revenue has not appealed, supports extending the benefit granted in the Suguna Cutpiece case. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Revenue).