Case Law Details
Oleena Mahila Samajam Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court has upheld the decision to cancel the GST registration of Oleena Mahila Samajam, a voluntary organization engaged in social work. The decision, rendered in 2024, came after the petitioner failed to comply with statutory requirements under the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, specifically pertaining to the filing of returns.
Background of the Case: The case stemmed from the cancellation of Oleena Mahila Samajam’s GST registration due to the non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months. Despite receiving a notice under Rule 22(1) and Sub-rule (2A) of Rule 21A, which required a response by May 4, 2022, the petitioner did not submit the required returns. Consequently, the registration was cancelled as per Exhibit P-3 order.
Contentions and Court’s Decision: The counsel for Oleena Mahila Samajam argued for leniency, citing an oversight by the petitioner’s accountant and the organization’s non-profit nature as grounds for reconsideration. However, the Kerala High Court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory provisions, stating that the court would not extend filing deadlines in violation of such regulations.
Acknowledging the petitioner’s failure to file returns within the stipulated period and to respond adequately to the notice served, the court found no basis for leniency. The judgment pointed out that the petitioner had the option to appeal the cancellation order but failed to do so. Moreover, the decision to approach the court was made significantly later, in 2024, further diminishing the petitioner’s case for indulgence.
Conclusion: The Kerala High Court’s decision to dismiss the writ petition filed by Oleena Mahila Samajam underscores the judiciary’s stance on the strict adherence to statutory deadlines for GST compliance. This ruling serves as a cautionary tale for all GST registrants about the critical importance of timely return filing and the potential consequences of non-compliance. The court’s refusal to grant relief against the cancellation order reinforces the principle that statutory obligations cannot be overlooked, regardless of an entity’s charitable status or intentions.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
1. The present writ petition has been impugning Exhibit P-3 order whereby the petitioner’s registration under the provisions of CGST/SGST Act, 2017 has been cancelled as the petitioner despite notice did not file return of its income.
2. Before cancellation of the registration, a notice under Rule 22(1), Sub-rule (2A) of Rule 21A was issued to the petitioner asking the petitioner to furnish reply by 04.05.2022. The reason for issuing the notice was mentioned as under;
“Any Taxpayer other than composition taxpayer has not filed returns for a continuous period of six months”.
Despite the service of the said notice, the petitioner did not file the return. In view thereof, the impugned order in Exhibit P-3 has been passed cancelling the registration.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was handicapped as the petitioner’s accountant did not notice the notice issued to the petitioner. The petitioner is a voluntary organisation engaged in social works without any profit motives and, therefore, a lenient view may be taken and the petitioner may be extended some more time to file return.
5. This Court will not pass an order which is in violation of the statutory provisions. When the statute requires filing of return within a particular time, this Court will not extend the limitation for filing the returns. Admittedly, the petitioner did not file the return for a period of six months and, despite service of notice, failed to file the return. Therefore, the petitioner’s registration has been cancelled. There is a remedy of filing appeal against the order of cancellation of registration. However, the petitioner has not approached the appellate authority. The order was passed way back on 05.05.2022 and the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition in the year 2024. This Court, therefore, cannot grant any indulgence to the petitioner against the impugned order in Exhibit P-3 dated 05.05.2022. Therefore, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Author Bio
