Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Pitchaiah Venkateshprumal Vs Superintendent of CGST & C. Excise (Madras High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P(MD).No.25743 of 2022
Date of Judgement/Order : 14/11/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Pitchaiah Venkateshprumal Vs Superintendent of CGST & C. Excise (Madras High Court)

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the matter of Pitchaiah Venkateshprumal v. Superintendent of CGST & Central Excise [W.P (MD). No. 25743 of 2022 & W.M.P (MD) Nos. 19848 & 19850 of 2022 dated November 14, 2022] has held that cancellation of Goods and Service Tax (“GST”) Registration due to non-filing of returns can be revoked if the assessee files the pending returns and pays the taxes, fines, interest along with fee due.

Facts:

Mr Pitchaiah Venkateshprumal (“the Petitioner”) filed a writ petition challenging the order of cancellation of its GST Registration of Petitioner’s Company, which was cancelled on the ground that the Petitioner did not file the GST returns for a consecutive period of six months. The Petitioner on the other hand contended that he was unaware of the cancellation of the GST Registration, as the Proprietor of the Petitioner’s Company was diagnosed with medical ailments and the business was carried out by the staffs. Furthermore, a part-time Accountant was taking care of the filing of the GST returns. The Petitioner came to know of the cancellation of the GST Registration after being informed by the other end of taxpayers. Therefore, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority but the same  was rejected on the ground that it was beyond the period of limitation.

Issue:

Whether the order of cancellation of the GST Registration of the Petitioner’s Company can be revoked?

Held:

The Hon’ble Madras High Court held as under:

  • Relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the matter of Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece v. the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others [W.P. Nos.25048, 25877, 12738 of 2021 dated January 31, 2022] wherein the Court had:
  • Allowed Petitioners to file their returns and pay any taxes, interests, fines and fees due before the cancellation of the Registration within 45 days with the further direction that the Petitioners would not be allowed to use any unused Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) to pay the amounts.
  • Petitioners would be responsible for paying the GST and filing returns for the period consequent to the cancellation of registration and would be allowed to use any earned IITC only after being scrutinized and approved by the competent authority.
  • The registration would be revived only upon payment of taxes and penalty, and uploading of returns.
  • The Court extended the benefit given to the Petitioner in the case of Suguna Cutpiece v. the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others (Supra) to the Petitioner in the present case provided same conditions are being followed.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of cancellation of the Registration Certificate on the premise that the Petitioner has failed to file Goods and Services Tax monthly returns for a continuous period of six months. Consequently, the Registration Certificate was cancelled with effect from 23.10.2020 in view of Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was unaware of the cancellation of the Registration Certificate, as the Proprietor of the Petitioner’s company was diagnosed with medical ailments related to heart and had to undergo treatment and was in bed rest. The business was carried on by the staff of the petitioner’s concern and only a part-time Accountant was taking care of the statutory compliances including filing of GST returns. It was only on being informed by the other end tax payers that the petitioner became aware that his GSTN registration stood cancelled. Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority has rejected the appeal on the ground that it was beyond the period of limitation.

3. It is submitted by both the learned counsel for the Petitioner and Respondents in unison that in identical circumstances, this Court, in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others (W.P.Nos.25048, 25877, 12738 of 2021 etc., batch), dated 31.01.2022, issued the following directions:

“229. In the light of the above discussion, these Writ Petitions are allowed subject to the following conditions:

i. The petitioners are directed to file their returns for the period prior to the cancellation of registration, if such returns have not been already filed, together with tax defaulted which has not been paid prior to cancellation along with interest for such belated payment of tax and fine and fee fixed for belated filing of returns for the defaulted period under the provisions of the Act, within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it has not been already paid.

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 which may be lying unutilized or unclaimed in the hands of these petitioners.

iii. If any Input Tax Credit has remained utilized, it shall not be utilised until it is scrutinized and approved by an appropriate or a competent officer of the Department.

iv. Only such approved Input Tax Credit shall be allowed for being utilized thereafter for discharging future tax liability under the Act and Rule.

v. The petitioners 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 and payment of GST shall also be in cash.

vi. If any Input Tax Credit was earned, it shall be allowed to be utilised only after scrutinising and approving by the respondents or any other competent authority.

vii. The respondents may also impose such restrictions / limitation on petitioners as may be warranted to ensure that there is no undue passing of Input Tax Credit pending such exercise and to ensure that there is no violation or an attempt to do bill trading by taking advantage of this order.

viii. On payment of tax, penalty and uploading of returns, the registration shall stand revived forthwith.

viii. On payment of tax, penalty and uploading of returns, the registration shall stand revived forthwith.

ix. The respondents shall take suitable steps by instructing GST Network, New Delhi to make suitable changes in the architecture of the GST Web portal to allow these petitioners to file their returns and to pay the tax/penalty/fine.

x. The above exercise shall be carried out by the respondents within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

xi. No cost.

xii. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”

The same has been consistently thereafter followed by this Court in various decisions, viz.,

a) M/s. Maaruthi Foundations Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC), reported in 2022 (5) TMI 405

b) J. Jayakrishnan Vs The Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai reported in 2022 (7) TMI 1226

c) Jeyalakshmi Store represented by its Proprietor, Sivanu Pandian Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reported in 2022 (7) TMI 1275

d) M/s. Pearl and Company Vs The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in W.P(MD)No.19127 of 2022.

4. In view of the fact that this Court has been consistently following the directions issued 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) and the Revenue/Department has also accepted the said view as evident from the fact that no appeal has been filed in any of the matters, this Court intends to follow the above order of this Court.

5. In view of the same, this Court feels that the benefit extended by this Court in the earlier orders referred to above in Suguna Cutpiece Centre’s case cited supra, may be extended to the Petitioner.

6. This Writ Petition is ordered on the same terms mentioned in paragraph 229 of the order of Suguna Cutpiece Centre (cited supra). No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

*****

(Author can be reached at [email protected])

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

One Comment

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Ads Free tax News and Updates
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
December 2024
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031