GST Registration Cancellation Overturned: Authorities Must Reconsider Case, Provide Hearing, and Review Pending Returns

HC allowed writ petition challenging GST registration cancellation. The court directed tax authorities to reconsider the case, verify returns, and provide a personal hearing within two weeks. Registration cancellation was deemed procedurally flawed due to lack of opportunity to be heard. Petitioner was instructed to submit pending returns upon registration revival.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are the cancellation of Goods and Service Tax (GST) registration of the petitioner firm due to non-filing of returns, dismissal of appeal on grounds of delay, and the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Cancellation of GST Registration:
The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled by the 4th respondent for failure to file returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner contended that the cancellation was arbitrary and illegal as no opportunity of hearing was provided. The petitioner sought restoration of registration, stating that returns were submitted for a specific period and tax was paid. The petitioner expressed willingness to submit returns for subsequent periods if registration is revived.

Dismissal of Appeal:
The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the 3rd respondent due to a delay of 35 days, exceeding the condonable period of one month as per Section 107 of the GST Act. The appellate authority rejected the appeal for admission based on this delay. The petitioner argued that the appeal was rejected on technical grounds, and since the GST Tribunal was not constituted, the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 was invoked.

High Court's Decision:
Upon review, the High Court found similarities with a previous case where the GST Tribunal was not constituted, leading to the remittance of the matter back to the primary authority for reconsideration. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the 4th respondent to reevaluate the petitioner's case, verifying the returns and providing a personal hearing. The High Court emphasized the need for an expedited decision within two weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner was instructed to file returns for subsequent periods upon the revival of registration, with no costs imposed.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the writ petition, remitting the matter back to the 4th respondent for reconsideration of the petitioner's case regarding the cancellation of GST registration. The decision highlighted the necessity for a fair review process, including verification of returns and a personal hearing, to be conducted promptly.

---