Nagaraju Chukkaluru (Bhavana Enterprises) vs. Deputy State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Nagaraju Chukkaluru (Bhavana Enterprises), had its Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration cancelled by the Deputy State Tax Officer on February 17, 2023, due to a continuous failure to furnish returns for six months. The petitioner sought revocation of this cancellation. The petitioner's counsel stated that the proprietor, Mr. Nagaraju Chukkaluru, a diabetic, suffered from severe white jaundice during the relevant period, necessitating prolonged bed rest and a temporary discontinuation of business activities. Upon recovery, the petitioner discovered the cancellation and found that the statutory limitation period for online revocation had expired. The respondents, represented by the Special Government Pleader for State Tax, acknowledged that the cancellation was based on the failure to furnish returns.

Held

The Court inclined to allow the petitioner to approach the competent authority within two weeks from the date of the order for submitting an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation. If the online application was not accepted for technical reasons, the petitioner was permitted to submit it in physical form. The competent authority was directed to entertain the application and decide it in accordance with the law within three weeks thereafter. The Court reasoned that considering the stated facts and circumstances, including the petitioner's medical condition, it was appropriate to provide this liberty. The Court disposed of the writ petition without any order as to costs. No specific issue was expressly left undecided, but the ultimate decision on revocation rested with the competent authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to apply for revocation of GST registration cancellation, notwithstanding the expiry of the statutory period, considering the medical circumstances presented. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that due to severe medical incapacitation (diabetes and white jaundice) requiring prolonged bed rest, they were unable to furnish GST returns. They contended that the cancellation occurred while they were medically unfit and that the online portal's statutory period for revocation had lapsed, preventing them from rectifying the situation. They sought a direction to allow a physical or manual application for revocation and to reinstate their registration, subject to compliance with pending return filings and tax payments. Revenue's Argument: The revenue's primary contention was that the cancellation was a direct consequence of the petitioner's failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months, as per the GST provisions. They did not present arguments regarding the petitioner's medical condition or any specific legal challenge to the court's discretion in allowing a late application.