Dillip Kumar Sethy vs. The Deputy Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated July 24, 2024, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration, is set aside. The respondent is directed to restore the GST registration of the petitioner, subject to the petitioner complying with the conditions previously imposed by this Court in the case of Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center. These conditions include filing pending returns, paying outstanding tax, interest, fine, and fees within 45 days, with such payments not to be made from Input Tax Credit (ITC). Any unutilized ITC will be subject to scrutiny. Future tax liabilities must be paid in cash, and ITC can only be utilized after approval. On compliance, the registration shall stand revived forthwith. The respondent is also to take steps to enable the petitioner to file returns and pay dues. The Court explicitly followed the directions and conditions laid down in the Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center judgment.

Facts

The petitioner, Tirunelveli Trading Company, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated July 24, 2024, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Tirunelveli Town Circle, which cancelled the petitioner's GST registration. The petitioner sought to quash this order and have their GST registration restored. Both the petitioner's counsel and the respondent's counsel agreed that the issue was covered by a previous decision of the same High Court in the case of Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center. The impugned order cancelled the GST registration effective from July 24, 2024.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration by the respondent is liable to be quashed and the registration restored, considering the precedent set by this Court in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center Vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the issue is squarely covered by the decision in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center, and therefore, the impugned order should be set aside and their GST registration restored, subject to compliance with the conditions laid down in that judgment. Respondent's contention: The respondent's counsel agreed that the issue was covered by the aforementioned precedent and did not present any opposing arguments. The respondent did not contest the petitioner's claim based on the prior ruling.