Thenmozhi 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 Suguna Cutpiece's case, and the Revenue/Department has accepted this view, as evidenced by the absence of appeals in similar matters. Therefore, the Court felt it appropriate to follow the established precedent. The operative part of the order directs the petitioner to comply with the terms laid down in paragraph 229 of the Suguna Cutpiece Centre's order. This implies that the petitioner must file pending returns, pay defaulted tax along with interest, fine, and fees within 45 days, with specific conditions regarding the utilization of Input Tax Credit and payment for periods subsequent to cancellation. The registration shall stand revived upon compliance.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.T.Tenmozhi, filed a writ petition seeking revocation of the cancellation of her GST registration. The 2nd respondent, the Superintendent, Madurai Rural South Assessment Circle, had cancelled the petitioner's GST registration on 07.03.2022 due to non-filing of GSTR 3B returns for six months. The petitioner appealed this cancellation to the First Appellate Authority, who rejected the appeal on 03.10.2022 as being filed beyond the period of limitation. The petitioner contended that the non-filing of returns was due to ill-health and severe financial crisis, resulting in no business transactions. The petitioner relied on previous High Court judgments where similar issues were addressed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns for six months, despite reasons of ill-health and financial crisis, is justified? 2. Whether the appeal against the cancellation order, rejected on grounds of limitation, should be considered on merits in light of previous High Court pronouncements? The petitioner argued that due to ill-health and financial crisis, she failed to furnish returns for six months, leading to the cancellation of her GST registration. She contended that in identical circumstances, this Court 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, issued specific directions for revival of registration. The petitioner highlighted that this Court has consistently followed the directions in Suguna Cutpiece's case, and the Revenue has not filed appeals against such orders, indicating acceptance of the view. The respondents, represented by the Government Advocate, did not present any specific arguments against the petitioner's plea or the precedent relied upon.