Court dismisses petition challenging CGST registration cancellation due to delay; petitioner's revival claim denied.

The court dismissed the petition challenging the cancellation of registration under the CGST Act, emphasizing the petitioner's delay in filing for revocation and approaching the court. The petitioner's failure to challenge the cancellation within the prescribed timeline led to the order attaining finality. The court held that the petitioner could not claim the revival of registration to benefit from the amnesty scheme after neglecting their rights following the cancellation.

---

---

Issues: Registration cancellation under the CGST Act, application for revocation, defect in software affecting revocation, benefit of amnesty scheme, delay in challenging cancellation.

Registration Cancellation under the CGST Act:
The petitioner's registration under the CGST Act was cancelled due to non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months. The cancellation was done after issuing a show-cause notice, and the reason for cancellation was recorded as suo motu cancellation due to non-filing of returns. The petitioner had filed an application for revocation of the cancellation, but it was rejected as it was filed after 90 days of the order cancelling registration.

Defect in Software Affecting Revocation:
The petitioner claimed that the respondents did not revoke the cancellation of registration due to a defect in the software maintained by them. This defect prevented the petitioner from benefiting from the amnesty scheme offered to taxpayers under the CGST Act, enabling them to furnish returns by a specified date with waived fees and penalties.

Benefit of Amnesty Scheme:
The petitioner argued that they were unable to avail the benefit of the amnesty scheme due to the cancellation of registration. The scheme allowed taxpayers to furnish returns by a specific date with waived fees and penalties. However, the petitioner's registration cancellation prevented them from benefiting from this scheme.

Delay in Challenging Cancellation:
The court noted that the petitioner had the remedy of challenging the cancellation of registration by filing an appeal, which they did not avail. The order cancelling registration had attained finality as the petitioner did not challenge it within the prescribed timeline. The court emphasized that the petitioner had delayed in filing an application for revocation of registration and in approaching the court, rendering the petition devoid of merit. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner could not claim the revival of registration to benefit from the amnesty scheme after sleeping over their rights following the cancellation.

---