Case Law Details
Pearl and Co. Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Madras High Court)
The petitioner used to furnish all the invoices, purchase and sales transactions particulars to the part time accountant, who uploaded monthly returns, GSTR-3B returns within the due dates and have also made payment of GST within time. This being so, the petitioner was severely affected by stomach pain and he had taken medical treatment, which was latterly diagnosed as Hernia and hence, he had undergone surgery and bed rest for several months. During this period, the civil work, undertaken by the petitioner were only executed to a limited extent and the staff not uploaded the progress of work and hence, the returns could not be filed. During the month of July 2022, the GSTIN registration was cancelled. Therefore, they were unable to avail Input Tax Credit. He further submitted that the show cause notice, dated 05.01.2022, was issued by the second respondent. Due to cancellation of GSTIN registration, the petitioner is unable to carry on his business. He further submitted that by restoring the registration number, the state would benefit by receiving the tax components. The petitioner attempted to file a representation to revoke the cancellation of registration. The same was not accepted, since the request for revocation is not filed within the statutory period of 90 (30+60) days. The representation for revocation of cancellation of registration could not be done.
Court is of the view that restoring the registration would not cause any harm to the department on the other hand it would be beneficial for the state to earn revenue. Further, in the case of Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others (W.P.Nos. 25048, 25877, 12738 of 2021 etc.. batch), dated 31.01.2022. There some of the petitioner filed an appeal beyond the period of limitation either for filing application for revocation of cancellation, while some of them had directly filed a writ petition against the order cancelling the registration. While some of them filed appeal beyond the statutory period of limitation, there was further delay in filing the writ petition. However, considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, it was held that no useful purpose will be served by keeping those petitioners out of the Goods and Services Tax regime, as such assessee would still continue to do business and supply goods/services. By not bringing them back to the Goods and Services Tax fold/regime, would not further the interest of the revenue.
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed subject to the above conditions.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
