GST Registration Restored: Petitioner Granted Opportunity to Rectify Non-Compliance by Filing Past Returns and Paying Dues

Petitioner's GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns. HC acknowledged prior case precedent and applied consistent directions, allowing petitioner to revive registration by filing past returns, paying defaulted tax with interest, and complying with specific procedural requirements. Court granted relief without imposing additional costs, demonstrating equitable interpretation of tax regulations.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to the cancellation of Registration Certificate due to failure to file GST returns for six months, Appeal rejection on the ground of limitation, Application of directions issued in previous cases to the current case.

Analysis:
The Writ Petition challenges the cancellation of the Registration Certificate based on the Petitioner's failure to file Goods and Services Tax monthly returns for six consecutive months, leading to the cancellation effective from 31.05.2019 under Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Petitioner, through counsel, argued that unawareness of the cancellation was due to the Petitioner's medical condition and subsequent treatment, with only a part-time Accountant handling statutory compliances. The Petitioner learned of the cancellation from other taxpayers and subsequently appealed, which was rejected by the appellate authority as time-barred.

Both counsels acknowledged a prior judgment in a similar case, where the Court issued specific directions. These directions included filing returns for the period before cancellation, payment of defaulted tax with interest, and fines within 45 days. The Court prohibited using unclaimed Input Tax Credit for payments and required approval before utilization. The judgment also mandated payment of GST in cash for subsequent periods and scrutinizing Input Tax Credit usage. The Court imposed restrictions to prevent misuse and specified steps for registration revival upon compliance.

Given the consistent application of the aforementioned directions in subsequent cases, the Court decided to extend the same benefits to the current Petitioner. Consequently, the Court ordered the Writ Petition to be governed by the terms outlined in the earlier judgment, with no costs incurred. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed accordingly. The decision reflects the Court's adherence to established precedents and the equitable application of legal principles in similar circumstances.

---