2022 (10) TMI 1067 - HC - GST

Tax Registration Revocation Overturned: COVID-19 Circumstances Considered, Authority Directed to Reassess Petitioner's Case Under CGST Act

Smt. Shailaja Chandrashekar Versus Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax (Appeals) Mysuru, Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax, Division-4, Bangalore, Superintendent Of Central Tax AWD-4 Range, Bangalore

HC quashed the Order-in-Appeal related to GST registration cancellation. The court found the dismissal contrary to CGST Act Sections 107 and 30. Directed ... Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Restoration of GST Registration of the Petitioner - case of petitioner is that the petitioner has paid the entire tax payable upto to the date of cancellation and for the subsequent period also certain amount has been deposited by the petitioner before the respondent No.1-Appellate Authority - HELD THAT:- Perusal of the material on record and Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 will indicate that as against an order passed by the respondent No.3 canceling the registration of GST, the petitioner has an remedy by way of appeal under Section 107 before the respondent No.1-Appellate Authority. In this context, it is relevant to state that merely because that the petitioner has an option of seeking revocation of the cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, it cannot be said that independent of the said remedy of seeking revocation of cancellation, an appeal would not be maintainable and as such, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1-Appellate Authority summarily dismissing the appeal on the ground that it is not maintainable in view of availability of the remedy of seeking revocation of the cancellation is clearly contrary to Section 107 and Section 30 of the CGST Act and same deserves to be set aside. Having regard to the material on record and specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that it was not possible for him to seek revocation of the cancellation order on account of the covid 19 pandemic and till disposal of the appeal by respondent No.1-Appellate Authority, the said explanation offered by the petitioner in not seeking revocation of the cancellation within a stipulated period of 30 days under Section 30 of the CGST Act is to be held as valid and proper - respondent No.2 is to be directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for revocation of the cancellation order in accordance with law - Petition allowed. Issues:1. Quashing of Order-in-Appeal No.: MYS-SPP-ADC/Jc(A)-001 to 010-2022-23 GST2. Restoration of GST Registration3. Maintainability of Appeal under Section 107 of CGST Act4. Validity of Explanation for Delay in Seeking Revocation of Cancellation5. Direction to Reconsider Revocation of Cancellation OrderQuashing of Order-in-Appeal:The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash the Order-in-Appeal related to GST registration cancellation. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, stating the only option was to approach for revocation. The Court held that the dismissal was contrary to Section 107 and Section 30 of the CGST Act. The impugned order was set aside, allowing the petition.Restoration of GST Registration:The petitioner's GST registration was revoked during the COVID-19 lockdown, leading to an appeal for restoration. The petitioner had paid due taxes and deposited additional amounts. The Court directed the authority to reconsider the revocation request, considering the petitioner's explanation for the delay and subject to payment of outstanding taxes.Maintainability of Appeal under Section 107:The Court emphasized that the availability of the remedy for seeking revocation of cancellation does not render an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act non-maintainable. The Appellate Authority's dismissal on this ground was deemed incorrect and against the provisions of the Act.Validity of Explanation for Delay:The petitioner's explanation for not seeking revocation within the stipulated period due to the COVID-19 pandemic was accepted as valid and proper. The Court directed the authority to reconsider the revocation request, taking into account the circumstances and the petitioner's compliance with tax obligations.Direction to Reconsider Revocation:The Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order and directing the authority to reconsider the revocation of GST registration. The authority was instructed to make a decision within two weeks from the date of the order, disregarding any communication issued during the pendency of the petition.This judgment highlights the importance of procedural compliance, the right to appeal under the CGST Act, and considerations for delays due to unforeseen circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic.