Tvl. Muthu Enterprises vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondent to revoke the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration. The Court followed its consistent view in similar cases, particularly the decision in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others. The operative directions issued in the Suguna Cutpiece case were extended to the petitioner. These directions included the petitioner filing all pending returns and paying the defaulted tax, interest, fine, and fees within 45 days, with the caveat that such payments could not be adjusted from Input Tax Credit (ITC). Any unutilized ITC would require scrutiny and approval by a competent officer. The petitioner was also directed to pay GST and file returns for the period subsequent to cancellation in cash, and any earned ITC would be subject to scrutiny. The registration would stand revived upon payment of tax, penalty, and uploading of returns. The Court also directed the GST Network to make necessary changes to allow filing of returns and payments. The respondent was to complete this exercise within 30 days.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Muthu Enterprises, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the cancellation of its GST registration by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tuticorin-II Circle, dated 07.03.2022, effective from 28.02.2022. The cancellation occurred because the petitioner failed to file GSTR 3B returns from July 2021 onwards. The petitioner's counsel submitted that due to health issues and family commitments, returns were not filed timely. Subsequently, returns for the period July 2021 to February 2022 were filed belatedly on 22.07.2022. The petitioner contended that these circumstances prevented them from filing an appeal within the stipulated time.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns, despite subsequent belated filing and explanation of circumstances, warrants intervention by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that due to health and family reasons, they could not file returns on time. They subsequently filed all pending returns and sought revocation of the cancellation. They relied on the High Court's decision in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others (W.P.Nos.25048, 25877, 12738 of 2021 etc., batch), dated 31.01.2022, which provided a framework for restoring registrations in similar situations. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent revenue authority.