Devi Sri Mahila Mandali vs. Union Of INDIA

Ileard Mr. Narendar Jalli, learned Senior Counsel for the petiLioner, Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor Gcneral of India appcaring for rcspondertt No.I and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counse! for CBIC appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 5. 3. [t appears that the rejection has been made primarily on the ground that the petitioner has failed ro hle their returns for more than six (06) months continuously.

From the submissions what is reflected is that, a show cause notice was issued to lhe pctitioner in this regard on 18.12.2020 to which the petitioner had also submitted his reply on 30.12.2O2O and in the light of the continuous defauit in submitting the returns lor more than srx (O6) months, the impugned order of cancellation of registration was passed by respondent No.

The p€titioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the respondent No.3/The Additionat

Learned Senior Counsel appcaring for the petitioner contended that becarLse of certain precarious conditions prevailing at the petitioner's house where the husband of the petitioner because of certain health issues went into coma state lor a period of roughly two (02) years zLnd in between the petitioner was not in a position to take care of thr business effectively and also was not in a position to follow-up all the statutory requirements under the various provisions of law including the GST.

Learr ed Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that given a chance, the petitioner shall make good the default so far as non-filing of the returns are concerned and the petitioner is also ready to pay thr requisite fine and penalty if any and the order of cancellatior of registration accordingly be restored, or else the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss. Moreover, the cancellation of registrati)n is not in the interest of either of the parties inasmuch as the Gove rnment is also not going to gain much.

Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC on the other hand contended that plain reading of the impugned order by itself is self- explanatory inasmuch as it would clearly reflect that the petitioner l l 0

It was the further contention of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC that the Writ Petition also suffers from delay latches inasmuch as the impugned order is one which was passed on 31.I2.2O2O and the Writ Petition now has been filed only on 13.12.2024. Though in between the petitioner did avail the remedy of appeal before respondent No.3, however, the appeal itself was filed after about three (O3) years time and was therefore righfly rejected on the ground of limitation. For all the aforesaid reasons according to the learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, the Writ Petition deserves to be rejected. g. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and also going through the factual details that are reflected from the pleadings itself, what is apparently visible is that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner oo 18.12.2020. The charge against the petitioner was that cf not furnishing the GST returns for more than six (O6) months continuous ly

At this juncture, it is necessary to appreciate the fact that the show cause notice was that of December,2O2O. Everybody knows that since March, 2O2O, onward,s it was COVID pandemic that ripped through the entire country bringing the entire commercial and industrial establishments to a standstill or at least remaining closed for a major part of that period. The business of these establishments including that of the petitioner must have definitely been affected coupled with the contentions of the petitioner that there was some serious heatth issues as stated in the preceding paragraphs at the house of thr: petitioner, all of which must have led to the default on the part of the petitioner so far as furnishing of the returns is concerned. 'lhe pandemic period continued further even beyond the date of can<,ellation of GST registration of the petitioner and in fact the impact of pandemic in the year 2O2l was far more severe which could had b<:en the further reason for continued default on the part of the petitioner.

It is relevant at this juncture to take note of the recent decision of the High Oourt of Delhi in the case of Kritika Agarural v. Union of India and othersl, wherein the High Court in a case of cancellation of GST registration had observed that: 'tfu' measure of canellation of GST must be exercised tuitlt circum-spection and only in cases, uth.ere it b nect"-ssaryD. This in otherwise means that the intention of the Honble Delhi High Court by allowing the writ petition 'w.p.(cl gqzq/zozl and cM Nos.36OOO/ 2023 &36@L/2O23

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner 2O2l etc-, batch), dated 31..01.2022, issued the following directions: "229. In the hght o[ the above discussion, these Writ Petitions are allowed sub.ject to the lollowing conditions: i. The peLitioners are directed to file their returns for the period prior to the cancellation of registration, if such returns have not been already frled, together with tax defaulted which has not been paid prior to cancellation along with interest for such belated payment of tax and fine and fee fixed for belated filing of returns lor the defaultcd period under the provisions of the Act, within a penod of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it has not been already paid- ii. It is made clear that such payment of Tax, Interest, fine / fee arrd etc. shall not be allowed to be made or adjusted from and out o[ any lnpuL Tax Credit which may be tying unutilized or unclaimed in the hands of these petitioners. 'z2022 SCC Online Mad 8452

Tt.e same has been consistently thereaftcr followed by this CourL in various decisions, viz., al M/ s.Maaruthi Foundations Piuate Ltmited Vs Deputg Commissioner ( @AC), reportel lff 2022 (S) TMI 40Sa b) J. Jagokrishnan 7s The Additional Chtef Secretary/ Commissioner of Commercial Toxes, Chennai reported n 2022 (7l,TMI 1275 ; dl M/ s.Pearl and Compang Vs The Commissioner of Comm.ercial Toxes in W.P(MD)No.19127 of 2022 '

In view of t].e fact that this Court has been consistently ald the Revenue/Department has also accepted the said view as evident from the fact that no appea-l has been frled in any of the matters, this Court intends to follow the above order of this Court.

In view of the same, this Court feels that the beneht extended by this Court in the earlier orders referred to above in Suguna Cutpiece Centre's case cited supra, may be extended to the Petitioner.

Given the said factual matrix of the case as also the judicial pronouncements that are referred to in the preceding paragraphs, if the default on the part of the petitioner is only so far as non- furnishing of the returns, we are of the considered opinion that subject to the petitioner making good the default, the said GST registration of the petitioner would get restored which would enable the petitioner to carry on his business and which would also generate GST revenue to the respondent authorities as well' 14. karned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has also undertaken to make good the necessary default so far as non- furnishing of the GST returns are concerned along with late fees and penalty that would be aPPlicable.

In view of the same, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of directing the petitioner to imrnediately appear before the respondent It \ \

The rMrit Petition is accordingly disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. I //// . C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REFTRAR To, SECTION OFFTCER ,| 2 3 The Secre:ary, Ministry of Finance, lncome Tax Department, Union of lndia, New Delhi The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax,, Hyderabad GST Commissionerate, Hyderabad ihe Additional Comririssioner of Central Tax and GST (Appeal-l),, Customs Cenkal Tax CommisSioner Office, 7th Floor, GST'Bhavan, L.B. Stadiurn Road, Hyderabad The Joini Oommissioner,, GST Bhavan, l-.B. Stadium Road. Hyderabad The Superintendent of Central. Tax,, Gaddiannaram Range,.Saroomagar GST DiVision, Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate, Hyderabad' One CC to Sri Narendar Jalli Advocate IOPUCI One CC to Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deiputy S6licilor General of lndia [OPUC] One CC to Sri Dominic Fernandes, Senior SC for CBIC(OPUC) Two CD C rpies \'!-- 4 5 6 7. 8o MBC LS