Sivan Muruganantham Thamarai Selvan vs. The Commercial Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Sivan Muruganantham Thamarai Selvan, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 03/10/2024, issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Ramanathapuram Circle. This order cancelled the petitioner's GST registration, effective from 03/10/2024. The petitioner sought to quash this cancellation order and direct the respondent to revoke the cancellation of their GST registration certificate. The matter was disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both parties.

Held

The Court held that the issue was squarely covered by its previous decision in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Center Vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others. Consequently, the impugned order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration was set aside. The respondent was directed to restore the petitioner's GST registration, subject to the petitioner complying with the conditions stipulated in the Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Center case. These conditions, as outlined in the cited judgment, include filing pending returns, paying defaulted tax along with interest, fine, and fees within 45 days, with the caveat that such payments cannot be made from Input Tax Credit (ITC). Unutilized ITC can only be used after scrutiny and approval by a competent officer. The petitioner must also pay GST and file returns for the period subsequent to cancellation, with payments made in cash. The respondents are to take steps to ensure the GST portal allows filing and payment, and the registration shall be revived forthwith upon compliance. The entire exercise is to be completed within 30 days. No costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration by the Commercial Tax Officer is illegal and unjustified, warranting quashing of the order and restoration of the registration. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was illegal and unjustified. While not explicitly detailed in the judgment, the prayer to quash the order and restore registration implies a challenge to the validity of the cancellation. The petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Center Vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others. Respondent's contention: The respondent, represented by the Special Government Pleader, agreed that the issue was squarely covered by the decision in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Center's case. This implies the respondent did not contest the petitioner's reliance on this precedent and likely conceded to the conditions laid out therein for restoration.