Case Law Details
Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Vs Superintendent (Madras High Court)
Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration due to non-filing of statutory returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner argued that all pending returns had been filed, taxes had been paid, and any further dues, including late fees and interest, would be settled as required under the GST Act. The case was reviewed in light of prior judgments, including the precedent set in Suguna Cutpiece vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), which had established conditions for reinstating cancelled registrations in similar circumstances.
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of reinstating the petitioner’s GST registration, provided certain conditions were met. These included filing pending returns, clearing outstanding tax liabilities with interest and penalties, and ensuring future tax compliance. The court specified that input tax credit (ITC) could not be used to settle past dues until approved by the authorities. It also directed GST Network, New Delhi, to facilitate the necessary changes in the GST portal to allow the petitioner to file returns and make payments. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and the petitioner was granted a 45-day window to complete the compliance process.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. R. Veeramanikandan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.Gowrishankar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging an order of cancellation of the registration of the petitioner on the premise that the statutory returns have not been filed for a continuous period of six months.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that returns have been filed and the appropriate taxes have also been paid and the petitioner is ready to pay any further taxes that may be due along with late fee and interest, as required under the Goods and Services Tax Act.
4. At the outset, it is submitted by both the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents that the issue stands covered by a series of judgments, commencing with the decision in Suguna Cutpiece vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others reported in 2022 (2) TMI 933, wherein, under identical circumstances, this Court has directed the revocation of registration subject to conditions.
5. This Court has been consistently following the directions issued in Suguna Cutpiece Center‘s case. Relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:
“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
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.
vii. On payment of tax, penalty and uploading of returns, the registration shall stand revived forthwith.
ix. On payment of tax, penalty and uploading of returns, the registration shall stand revived forthwith.
x. 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.”
6. In view thereof, the benefit extended by this Court vide its earlier order in Suguna Cutpiece Centre‘s case cited supra, may be extended to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of on the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
Author Bio
