2020 (6) TMI 479 - HC - GST

Private Company Faces GST Registration Cancellation, Court Upholds Decision

M/s Magnamind Ventures (P) Ltd. Versus The State of Kerala, Commercial Tax Officer/State Tax Officer, Commissioner of Kerala State Gst, The Superintendent of Central Tax And Central Excise, Chief Commissioner of Central Taxes, Goods And Service Tax Council, Goods And Service Tax Network

The appellant, a private limited company, faced cancellation of their registration due to delayed payment of GST. Despite agreeing to pay in installments, ... Extension of period for seeking revocation of cancellation of registration - HELD THAT:- When the matter was taken up, there was neither deposit made nor even an offer from the appellant as to a specific amount being deposited within a specified period. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that no interference can be made to the judgment of the learned Single Judge. However, it is brought to our notice that, the Goods and Services Tax Council has made some recommendations for extension of period for seeking revocation of cancellation of registration. Appeal dismissed. Issues: Delayed payment of GST, cancellation of registration, pandemic impact on payments, extension of revocation periodIn this judgment, the primary issue revolves around a private limited company engaged in dry cleaning services delaying the payment of Central Goods and Services Tax (GST) and State GST since 2017. Despite delays in payments, no action was taken until the dues accumulated significantly, leading the department to take action through a show cause notice issued by the 4th respondent. The appellant agreed to pay the overdue amounts in 12 monthly installments but failed to make any deposits, resulting in the cancellation of their registration. The appellant argued that they were willing to make payments but faced challenges due to the pandemic and subsequent lockdown, which affected their ability to operate and make online payments. The court directed the appellant to pay a specified amount by a certain date, but as of the latest hearing, no deposit or offer had been made, leading the court to uphold the Single Judge's decision due to lack of compliance.Regarding the extension of the revocation period, it was noted that the Goods and Services Tax Council had recommended an extension, but no formal notification had been issued at the time of the judgment. The department informed the court that if such a notification were to be released, the appellant could seek remedy under that provision despite the dismissal of the Writ Appeal. Ultimately, the court dismissed the Writ Appeal with the observation that the appellant could explore options under any future notification granting an extension for seeking revocation of the cancelled registration.