M/S.Immanuvel Dharmaraja Store vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST)

Held

The Court held that the benefit extended in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others should be extended to the petitioner. The Court noted that this view has been consistently followed in various subsequent decisions and that the Revenue/Department has accepted this position by not filing appeals in those matters. Therefore, 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 is directed to file their returns for the period prior to cancellation, pay defaulted tax, interest, fine, and fee within 45 days, with the condition that such payments cannot be made from Input Tax Credit (ITC). Unutilized ITC will require scrutiny and approval before being used for future liabilities. The petitioner also needs to pay GST and file returns for the period subsequent to cancellation in cash. Upon compliance, the registration shall stand revived forthwith, and the respondents are to take steps to facilitate filing and payment on the GST portal. No cost was awarded.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Immanuvel Dharmaraja Store, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST), the first respondent. This order rejected the petitioner's appeal against the cancellation of their GST registration. The registration was cancelled under Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, due to the failure to file monthly GST returns for the period from June 2019 to August 2021. A show cause notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), the second respondent, on 24.05.2019. The petitioner claims to have paid dues for June 2019 to August 2021, including tax and penalty, but was unable to pay tax from September 2021 until the cancellation order was passed. The appeal was rejected by the appellate authority as being time-barred.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's appeal against the cancellation of GST registration was rightly rejected by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner on the grounds of limitation, considering the circumstances presented by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief granted in similar cases by this Court, specifically in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others, where directions were issued for revival of registration upon compliance with certain conditions? The petitioner argued that in identical circumstances, this Court, in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece, had issued specific directions for the revival of registration. They relied on this precedent and submitted that the revenue/department had accepted this view by not filing appeals in those matters. The petitioner contended that the benefit extended in the Suguna Cutpiece case should be extended to them. The respondents, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not present any specific arguments against the petitioner's plea for relief based on the precedent, as indicated by the judgment's focus on applying the prior ruling.