Taxpayer Wins GSTN Registration Restoration After Challenging Cancellation, Required to File Returns and Pay Outstanding Taxes

HC allowed petitioner's writ petition challenging GSTN registration cancellation. Following precedent from prior case, court directed restoration of registration upon filing outstanding returns, paying taxes and fees, and imposing restrictions on Input Tax Credit. Respondents' limitation period argument was rejected, with court extending previous case's beneficial directions to current petitioner.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to the cancellation of GSTN registration and the applicability of the period of limitation.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the Reference No.ZA3303220183072, dated 04.03.2022, for the cancellation of the GSTN registration No.33AAMFB9051E1ZL. The petitioner claimed ignorance of the cancellation until informed by another establishment. The petitioner approached the respondents to restore the registration, but the second respondent cited the expiry of the limitation period as the reason for the cancellation. The petitioner's counsel argued that a similar situation was addressed in a previous case, Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner, where specific directions were issued by the court. These directions included filing returns for the period prior to cancellation, payment of outstanding taxes, fines, and fees, restrictions on utilizing Input Tax Credit, and the revival of registration upon compliance. The court noted that the Revenue had not challenged previous orders following the same directions, indicating acceptance of the court's view. Consequently, the court decided to extend the benefits granted in previous cases to the petitioner.

The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent contended that the appellate authority must adhere to the prescribed limitations, and any orders passed beyond the limitation period are legally sustainable. The court acknowledged a consistent approach in similar cases and the finality of previous orders due to the Revenue not appealing against them. Given the court's adherence to the directions issued in the Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece case and the Revenue's acceptance of the same, the court decided to grant the petitioner the benefits outlined in the earlier orders. Accordingly, the court ordered the writ petition to be allowed on the same terms as mentioned in the previous case, with no costs incurred. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a consequence of the judgment.

---