M/S Snowline Travel Ventures LLP vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax

Held

The Court agreed with the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that filing of NIL returns is not a ground contemplated under Sub-Section (2) of Section 29 of the GST Act. Consequently, the Court held that the impugned show cause notice and the order passed in pursuance thereof, which cancelled the petitioner's registration on this ground, could not survive. The Court reasoned that the statutory provisions for cancellation of registration did not include the filing of NIL returns as a permissible ground. Therefore, the cancellation order was quashed. The ratio decidendi is that cancellation of GST registration must be based on grounds explicitly provided in Section 29(2) of the GST Act, and administrative actions not conforming to these grounds are liable to be set aside.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Snowline Travel Ventures LLP, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 06.11.2024 and the subsequent order dated 26.12.2024, which cancelled its GST registration. The cancellation was based on the ground of "filing NIL return from last several months." The petitioner argued that this was not a valid ground for cancellation under the GST Act. The respondents are the Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, and another authority. The dispute concerns the validity of the cancellation order and the show cause notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether filing NIL returns for several months constitutes a valid ground for cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2) of the GST Act? The petitioner contended that Section 29(2) of the GST Act enumerates specific circumstances under which registration can be cancelled, and filing NIL returns is not among them. The petitioner relied on the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment in Kali Shanker Enterprises vs. Additional Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax Officer, the Chief Commissioner, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2024 (1) TMI 430, to support this submission. The respondents, represented by the learned Standing Counsel, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's submission.