Case Law Details
Bansal Steels Vs Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax (Delhi High Court)
The petitioner had applied for cancellation of its GST registration for the first time on 04.12.2018 with effect from that date, stating that the reason for seeking such cancellation was that it had discontinued/closed its business.
The said application was rejected by an order dated 11.02.2019 on the ground that the Central Tax Liability entered was incorrect.
The petitioner states that it filed the ‘Nil’ GST return for the period after 04.12.2018 till the January 2019, to comply with the provisions of law as its application seeking cancellation of its GST registration with effect of 04.12.0218, was rejected. The petitioner also immediately filed a second application for cancellation of the registration on 11.02.2019 requesting that the registration be cancelled from 01.02.2018. This was an apparent error as the petitioner had continued to file its returns till January 2019. According to the petitioner, it had, by an inadvertent error, entered 01.02.2018 as the date from which cancellation of registration was sought, instead of 01.02.2019.
By an order dated 08.04.2022 passed in RPG Polymers v. Commissioner of DGST Delhi and Anr. W.P.(C) 5849/2022, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had clarified that such errors, which are apparent on the face of the record, are required to be rectified under Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
