M/S Raddi Bazaar Industries Private Limited vs. Appellate Joint Commissioner (CT)

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing that if the petitioner approaches the competent authority within one week from the date of the order for submission of an application for revocation of GST registration cancellation in physical form, the competent authority shall entertain it and take a decision in accordance with law within three weeks thereafter. The Court acknowledged the cancellation was due to non-filing of returns for six consecutive months and the petitioner's plea regarding the inability to file a manual application. The Court did not explicitly rule on the legality of the cancellation itself or the violation of Article 19(1)(g), but rather provided a procedural remedy. The ratio decidendi is that in circumstances where a taxpayer faces technical difficulties in rectifying non-compliance and demonstrates a willingness to comply, the competent authority should consider entertaining manual applications for revocation of registration cancellation to ensure substantial justice, provided the application is made within a reasonable time.

Facts

M/s Raddi Bazaar Industries Private Limited (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration (GSTIN 36AAKCR0495D1ZB) by the Superintendent (CT) (2nd Respondent) on 12.08.2024, for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. The Appellate Joint Commissioner (CT) (1st Respondent) dismissed the petitioner's time-barred appeal against this cancellation. The petitioner argued that there were no outstanding GST dues, the non-filing was due to reliance on an accountant and unawareness of notices, and the GST portal did not allow manual submission of a revocation application beyond the prescribed time limit. The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to entertain its application for revocation manually and revive its GST registration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months, was illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law, violating the fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to submit a manual application for revocation of GST registration cancellation, given the portal's limitations and the circumstances presented? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the cancellation was illegal and arbitrary. They argued that there were no outstanding GST dues, and the non-filing of returns was unintentional, stemming from reliance on an accountant and lack of awareness of notices. They also highlighted that the GST portal prevented them from filing a revocation application due to time bar, despite their willingness to rectify the situation. They sought a direction for manual acceptance of their application. Respondents' arguments: The Special Government Pleader for State Tax stated they had no instructions regarding the assertion of no outstanding dues. However, they acknowledged that the cancellation was based on the apparent reason of non-filing of returns for six consecutive months.