Chellaiah Boopathi vs. The Office Of The Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise (Appeals)

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, extending the benefit granted in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others. The Court noted that it has consistently followed the directions issued in the Suguna Cutpiece case and that the Revenue has accepted this view by not filing appeals. Therefore, the Court felt it appropriate to extend the same benefit to the present petitioner. The operative directions are those mentioned in paragraph 229 of the Suguna Cutpiece order, which include directions for the petitioner to file pending returns with tax, interest, fine, and fees, with specific conditions regarding the utilization of Input Tax Credit. The registration is to be revived forthwith upon compliance. The respondents are directed to take steps to enable filing of returns and payment through the GST portal. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Chellaiah Boopathi, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of his GST registration certificate. The cancellation was based on the ground of failing to file monthly GST returns for a continuous period of six months, as per Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the COVID-19 pandemic prevented him from filing returns. A show cause notice was issued on 29.03.2022, to which the petitioner responded on 09.04.2022. The Superintendent of GST passed an order on 22.04.2022 cancelling the registration. The petitioner's appeal to the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals) was rejected on 08.09.2022, primarily on the grounds of being filed beyond the period of limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration under Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for continuous non-filing of returns for six months, is sustainable when the non-filing is attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic? 2. Whether the appellate authority was justified in rejecting the appeal on the grounds of limitation, considering the circumstances? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the inability to file returns was due to the COVID-19 pandemic. He relied on a previous judgment of 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, which provided specific directions for revival of registration in similar circumstances. The petitioner also highlighted that this view has been consistently followed by the Court and accepted by the Revenue, as no appeals were filed against such orders. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the appellate authority's order rejecting the appeal on limitation grounds implies a contention that the appeal was not filed within the prescribed time.