Case Law Details
A.R.J. Engineering Works Vs Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
Background: The petitioner, A.R.J. Engineering Works, sought to challenge the cancellation of their GST registration and requested its revocation. The petitioner claimed that due to ill-health, they were unable to file their GST returns on time, leading to the cancellation of their registration.
Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioner, through their counsel, argued that they made attempts to file GST returns and appealed against the registration cancellation in 2024. However, these appeals were dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred. The counsel referenced a previous order by the Madras High Court on 08.02.2024 in W.P.No.33227 of 2023, suggesting that a similar decision be applied to their case.
Respondent’s Argument: Mr. V. Prashanth Kiran, representing the government, acknowledged the petitioner’s notice and highlighted the conditional nature of the court’s decision in the case of Suguna Cutpiece v. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others, dated 31.01.2022. He suggested that the petitioner should adhere to the same conditions stipulated in that case.
Court’s Decision: Given the arguments, the court decided it was unnecessary to adjudicate the merits of the case. Instead, it chose to follow the precedent set by the Suguna Cutpiece case, imposing several strict conditions on the petitioner for the restoration of their GST registration. The directions were as follows:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
