Case Law Details
Sparta Food Factory India Pvt Ltd Vs Superintendent of GST & Central Excise (Madras High Court)
Introduction: In a recent judgment that underscores the importance of compliance with tax return filings under the GST regime, the Madras High Court has set aside an appellate order which rejected Sparta Food Factory India Pvt Ltd’s appeal against the cancellation of its GST registration. This case brings to light critical aspects of GST law, particularly concerning the revocation of cancelled GST registrations.
Detailed Analysis: The crux of the matter lies in the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration by the competent authority, effective from 08.10.2022, due to non-compliance with return filing requirements. Subsequently, the petitioner rectified this by filing all pending GST returns by 31.08.2023 and settling all tax dues, including interest and late fees. Despite these corrective measures, the appellate authority dismissed the petitioner’s appeal for reinstatement of its GST registration solely on the grounds of delay, without considering the merits of the case or the petitioner’s compliance efforts.
The High Court, upon examination, found that the petitioner had indeed filed all necessary returns and cleared dues. The court highlighted that the application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), and Rule 23 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules), should take into account the date of the last return filed. The High Court also noted the potential applicability of recent amendments to Section 30 and Rule 23, as well as the amnesty scheme that took effect after the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled.
Conclusion: The Madras High Court’s decision to remand the matter back to the appellate authority for reconsideration on merits emphasizes the judiciary’s approach towards ensuring that procedural lapses, particularly those rectified by the taxpayer, do not lead to irreversible consequences like the cancellation of GST registration. This judgment serves as a reminder to the business community about the importance of timely compliance with GST return filings and the possibility of relief even after procedural defaults, provided substantive compliance is demonstrated subsequently.
This case also highlights the evolving nature of GST legislation and the judiciary’s role in interpreting these changes in a manner that balances the tax administration’s need for compliance with the taxpayer’s right to a fair hearing. Businesses must stay abreast of legislative changes and avail themselves of schemes like amnesty, where applicable, to regularize past non-compliances and safeguard their registration status.
In conclusion, the Madras High Court’s ruling in favor of Sparta Food Factory India Pvt Ltd reinforces the principle of justice and the importance of considering the merits of each case, thereby providing a significant precedent for similar cases in the GST regime.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
An appellate order dated 29.09.2023 rejecting the petitioner’s appeal against the cancellation of its GST registration is under challenge. The petitioner was a registered person under applicable GST laws and its registration was cancelled by the first respondent under order dated 21.12.2023 with effect from 08.10.2022. After such cancellation, the petitioner filed its GST returns on various dates and the last of such returns was filed on 31.08.2023. The petitioner states that all tax dues, including interest and late fee dues were discharged.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the time limit prescribed by Section 30(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the CGST Act), as it stood then, should be calculated from the date of filing of relevant returns in view of the stipulation in Rule 23(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (the CGST Rules), as it stood then, that an application for revocation of cancellation cannot be filed until returns are In the alternative, he submits that the benefit of the amendment to Section 30 and Rule 23 should be extended to the petitioner. The last contention is that the benefit of the amnesty scheme should be extended by taking into account the fact that the cancellation of registration took effect from 08.10.2022.
3. Mrs. R. Hemalatha, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. She submits that no benefit should accrue to the petitioner as a result of belated filing of returns. In this regard, she relies upon Section 39 of the CGST Act.
4. By the impugned order, the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed entirely on the ground of The appellate authority noticed that the appeal was filed on 30.08.2023, which was 132 days after the period for which delay could be condoned. The said finding is factually correct. Nonetheless, the admitted position is that the petitioner filed all its returns and that the last of such returns was filed on 31.08.2023. The petitioner has also categorically asserted that all tax dues, including interest and fees relating thereto, were duly discharged. By taking into account the overall facts and circumstances, this is an appropriate case to direct the appellate authority to consider the appeal on merits.
5. For reasons set out above, the appellate order impugned herein is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. The appellate authority is directed to consider and dispose of the appeal on merits within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.
6. W. P.No.3423 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.3684 of 2024 is closed.
Author Bio
