Ved Ram vs. The State Of Hp And Others

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner failed to adhere to the statutory timelines for filing an appeal or seeking revocation of cancellation, the circumstances warranted a lenient approach. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that they have paid the tax dues and are ready to pay all accrued interest, late fees, and penalties. The Court noted that the State did not oppose the petition, subject to the petitioner clearing their dues. Consequently, the order dated 17.06.2023 cancelling the petitioner's GST registration was set aside. The concerned authority was directed to revive the petitioner's registration to its original status. The revival is conditional upon the petitioner depositing the entire tax payable for the relevant period, along with applicable interest, late fees, and penalties, by 15.11.2025. The respondents are to facilitate this by opening the portal for deposit. The petitioner is also directed to complete all formalities and ensure regular filing of returns and tax payments in the future. The ratio decidendi is that in exceptional circumstances, and with the revenue's acquiescence, a cancellation order can be set aside to allow for the revival of registration upon payment of all dues, even if statutory remedies were not availed within time.

Facts

The petitioner, Ved Ram, a Class-D Government Contractor, approached the High Court of Himachal Pradesh challenging an order dated 17.06.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise. This order cancelled the petitioner's GST registration due to default in tax payment. A show cause notice for cancellation was issued on 24.05.2023, suspending the registration. The petitioner admits to being in default but claims to have paid the tax due before the cancellation date and is ready to pay all applicable interest, late fees, and penalties. The petitioner did not file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act within the prescribed limitation period, nor did they file an application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration is sustainable when the petitioner has paid the tax dues and is willing to pay interest, late fees, and penalties, despite not filing an appeal within the statutory period? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argues that due to unavoidable circumstances, they could not pay the tax on time. However, they have since paid the tax due before the cancellation date and are prepared to deposit all accrued interest, late fees, and penalties. They seek the cancellation order to be dropped and their GST registration to be revived. The petitioner relies on their status as a government contractor whose livelihood depends on their registration. Respondents' contention: The State did not file a reply or communicate any objection to allowing the petition. However, their implicit stance, as reflected in the court's observation, is that the petition could be allowed subject to the petitioner clearing all outstanding tax liabilities, including interest, late fees, and penalties.