Case Law Details
Peter Ramaswamy Vs Assistant Commissioner (Circle) (Madras High Court)
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court addressed the case of Peter Ramaswamy, a stunt choreographer whose GST registration was cancelled abruptly.
Peter Ramaswamy, in his petition, challenged the cancellation of his GST registration, citing that he had been diligently filing GST returns until December 2022. He claimed that due to a period of inactivity in his business, he was unable to file returns thereafter, leading to the cancellation of his registration. His plea was supported by legal arguments and precedent, notably referencing the case of Suguna Cutpiece v. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST).
The court, after hearing both parties, acknowledged Ramaswamy’s compliance history and the circumstances leading to the cancellation. It directed Ramaswamy to settle outstanding tax dues and file all pending returns within 45 days. Importantly, the court specified that any unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) could not be adjusted against tax dues until approved by the tax authorities.
Furthermore, the judgment highlighted the necessity for Ramaswamy to accurately declare future tax liabilities and utilize ITC only upon approval. The court’s directives extended to instructing GST Network for necessary modifications to facilitate compliance by Ramaswamy.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Madras High Court’s decision in the case of Peter Ramaswamy underscores the importance of timely GST compliance and the serious consequences of non-compliance. While granting conditional restoration of GST registration, the court’s order emphasizes stringent adherence to tax regulations and the proper utilization of tax credits. This case serves as a significant precedent in GST law, balancing taxpayer rights with regulatory imperatives.
This comprehensive analysis provides insights into the legal intricacies of GST registration restoration and underscores the pivotal role of judicial review in upholding taxpayer rights under the GST regime.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The petitioner challenges an order of cancellation of GST registration dated 28.06.2023 and seeks revocation thereof.
2. The petitioner asserts that he is a stunt choreographer and was a registered person under applicable GST laws. According to the petitioner, he had engaged the services of an accountant for purposes of complying with requirements under GST laws. Therefore, he was shocked and surprised when he discovered that his GST registration was cancelled by the order impugned herein. The present writ petition arises in the said facts and circumstances.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed GST returns up to December 2022. Thereafter, he did not have any business and could not file returns. He would file the necessary GST returns 2/6 event of the GST registration being restored. In support of restoration istration, learned counsel relies upon the judgment of this Court in Suguna Cutpiece v. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others, W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 batch (Suguna Cutpiece).
4. Mr. V. Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondent and submits that directions along the lines of Suguna Cutpiece may be issued.
5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
i. The petitioner is directed to file returns for the period prior to the cancellation of registration, if not filed, together with tax dues along with interest thereon and the fee fixed for belated filing of returns within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
ii. It is made clear that such payment of tax, interest, fine / fee and etc. shall not be allowed to be made or adjusted from and out of any Input Tax Credit (ITC) which may be lying unutilized or unclaimed in the hands of the petitioner.
iii. If any ITC has remained unutilized, it shall not be utilised until it is scrutinized and approved by an appropriate or competent officer of the Department.
iv. Only such approved ITC shall be allowed to be utilized thereafter for discharging future tax liability under the Act and Rules.
v. The petitioner shall also pay GST and file the returns for the period subsequent to the cancellation of the registration by declaring the correct value of supplies.
vi. If any ITC was earned, it shall be allowed to be utilised only after scrutinising and approving by the respondent or any other competent
vi. On payment of tax, penalty and uploading of returns, the registration shall stand revived forthwith.
vii. The respondent shall take suitable steps by instructing GST Network, New Delhi to make suitable changes in the architecture of the GST Web portal to allow the petitioner to file the returns and to pay the tax / penalty / fine.
ix. The above exercise shall be carried out by the respondent within a d of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. The restoration of the GST registration is subject to and conditional upon fulfilling the above conditions.
7. The Writ Petition is disposed of on the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
Author Bio
