Case Law Details
P.Jeyaraman Vs Assistant Commissioner (CT) (Madras High Court)
The case of P.Jeyaraman vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), heard by the Madras High Court, concerns the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration allegedly abused by third parties.
The petitioner, registered under GST enactments, claimed that third parties abused his GST registration during the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner filed nil returns, but his consultant discovered the abuse upon logging into the portal. Alleging unawareness of the show cause notice preceding the cancellation order, the petitioner complained to the Cyber Crime Cell and applied for revocation, pending disposal.
The petitioner’s counsel argued the petitioner’s intent to resume business and the necessity of registration restoration for refund claims. The Government Advocate noted contradictory statements in the petitioner’s complaint and submission, highlighting the need for disposal of the revocation application.
The Madras High Court directed the second respondent to dispose of the petitioner’s revocation application within two months, granting the petitioner a reasonable opportunity.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
An order of cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration is challenged in this writ petition.
2. The petitioner was a registered person under applicable GST enactments. It is stated that his business was drastically affected during the COVID-19 pandemic and that he was filing nil returns. The petitioner asserts that his GST registration was abused by third parties and that his consultant discovered the same upon logging into the portal. Consequently, he made a complaint on 17.05.2023 to the Cyber Crime Cell. The petitioner also asserts that he was unaware of the show cause notice preceding the impugned order of cancellation. Consequently, he applied for revocation and the application for revocation has not been considered and disposed of till date.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s complaint to the Cyber Crime Cell was prior to the impugned order of cancellation. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner intends to resume business and that he is also entitled to a refund claim, which cannot be made unless the GST registration is restored.
4. Mr. V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondents. Learned Government Advocate submits that the submissions of the petitioner are contradictory. He points out that the petitioner has stated in the complaint to the Cyber Crime Cell that his GST consultant had logged into his GST account, whereas he also contends that he could not reply to the show cause notice on the ground of not having access to the GST portal. Since the petitioner’s application for revocation has still not been disposed of, learned Government Advocate submits that a direction may be issued for the disposal thereof.
5. In view of the submissions of learned Government Advocate, W.P.No.9003 of 2024 is disposed of by directing the second respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s application to revoke the cancellation of registration within a period of two months after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Author Bio
