Court orders restoration of petitioner's GST registration, criticizes respondents for non-compliance

The Court found in favor of the petitioner, a registered society, in a case involving the cancellation and subsequent restoration of their GST registration. Despite initial disputes over the restoration process, the Court upheld the appellate order restoring the registration, criticizing the respondents for non-compliance. The Court directed the respondents to restore the petitioner's GST registration on the GST Portal within ten days, emphasizing the importance of upholding judicial decisions and ensuring justice for the petitioner.

---

---

Issues:
1. Failure to file monthly returns leading to cancellation of GST registration.
2. Non-implementation of appellate order restoring GST registration on the GST Portal.
3. Dispute regarding manual restoration of GST registration and requirement of revocation application.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the petitioner, a registered society, failing to file monthly returns (GSTR-3B) for several months, resulting in the cancellation of their GST registration. A show cause notice was issued, and upon non-compliance, the registration was cancelled. However, the appellate authority later set aside this cancellation order and restored the petitioner's GST registration with effect from a specific date.

2. The petitioner, aggrieved by the non-implementation of the appellate order on the GST Portal, sought relief through a writ petition. The petitioner requested the restoration of the registration certificate and active status on the portal, as directed by the appellate authority. The respondents initially argued about the responsibility for restoration, suggesting the petitioner should reapply online for registration.

3. The respondents contended that manual restoration of GST registration was not possible, and the petitioner should have filed a revocation application in the prescribed form. They highlighted the requirements under Rule 23(1) of the GST Act, emphasizing the need for filing old returns, tax details, and interest or penalties along with the revocation application. The respondents argued that failure to comply with these requirements warranted dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Despite the arguments presented by the respondents, the Court found that the appellate order restoring the petitioner's GST registration was legal and within jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the respondents could not refuse to comply with a judicial order. The Court criticized the contention that there was no provision for restoration of GST registration, stating that it would be a travesty of justice. The Court held that the lack of a provision in the software was not the petitioner's fault, and the authorities were responsible for making necessary provisions on the GST Portal.

5. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to restore the petitioner's GST registration on the GST Portal within ten days of the order. The Court instructed all respondents to cooperate to ensure compliance with the order, emphasizing the importance of upholding judicial decisions and ensuring justice for the petitioner.

---