GST Registration Must Be Restored When Business Unit Remains Operational Despite Pending Corporate Resolution

The HC allowed the petitioner's writ for Mandamus directing tax authorities to accept tax payments without penalty and restore GST registration. The court rejected private respondents' objections regarding alternative remedies under Section 107 of GST laws and Section 250 of Companies Act, finding them meritless as the petitioner's business unit remained operational. The court determined that private respondents deliberately attempted to close the business and noted the NCLT's delay in resolving a related matter since 2003. The HC directed revival of cancelled GST registration and expedited resolution of the company petition.

---

---

Issues:
1. Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to receive tax due without penalty.
2. Restoration of the writ petition.
3. Opposition to the prayer by private respondents.
4. Interpretation of Sections 248 and 250 of the Companies Act, 2013.
5. Deliberate attempt to close down the business by private respondents.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought a Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to receive outstanding taxes without penalty, enabling the petitioner to file GST returns. The court earlier directed the petitioner to pay due taxes for Unit B, allowing compliance with the Act for that unit. The respondents were instructed to provide temporary user ID and password for filing returns, with the option to initiate proceedings against the company for defaults. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations, emphasizing the need for tax payment and compliance.

2. The writ petition was initially disposed of, but private respondents filed an application for restoration due to an ex-parte order. The court recalled the previous order, reinstating the writ petition for further consideration.

3. Private respondents opposed the prayer, citing alternative remedies under Section 107 of GST enactments and Section 250 of the Companies Act, 2013. They argued that the company's name was struck off for failure to file returns, but the conditions for striking off were not met as Unit B was operational. The court found the objections meritless, emphasizing the purpose of GST enactments to ensure tax collection on all supplies.

4. The court analyzed Sections 248 and 250 of the Companies Act, 2013, concluding that Section 250 applies only if a company stands dissolved under Section 248. As the petitioner's company was operational, the opposition's arguments lacked merit. The court dismissed the relevance of filing an appeal against the registration cancellation under other acts.

5. The court noted a deliberate attempt by private respondents to close down the business, impacting the petitioner's profits from Unit B. The National Company Law Tribunal was involved in a matter since 2003 without a final conclusion. Considering these factors, the court allowed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to revive the cancelled GST registration and urging the NCLT to expedite the related company petition for closure.

---