2023 (4) TMI 119 - HC - GST

GST registration cancellation for non-filing returns serves no purpose when businesses continue operations

The Madras HC disposed of a writ petition challenging GST registration cancellation due to non-filing of returns for over 6 months. Following the ... Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - non-filing of GST and monthly returns for over 6 months - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed upon the decision of the Principal Bench of this Court in TVL. SUGUNA CUTPIECE CENTER VERSUS THE APPELLATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) (GST), THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CIRCLE), SALEM BAZAAR [2022 (2) TMI 933 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], wherein, it was held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners out of the Goods and Services Tax regime, as such assessee would still continue to do business and supply goods and services. Since the issue involved in this writ petition is similar, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the guidelines provided in the order in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others. Issues involved: Cancellation of GST Registration and direction for revocation.Summary: The petitioner, a partnership firm providing security services, filed a writ petition to quash the respondent's order canceling their GST Registration and to direct the restoration of the same. The petitioner had been diligent in filing returns and paying GST on time but discovered that their registration was canceled due to the part-time accountant's failure to file returns for over 6 months. The petitioner sought relief based on a previous judgment emphasizing the importance of integrating taxpayers back into the GST regime to ensure tax compliance and prevent unintended privileges. The court, citing constitutional provisions and legal precedents, exercised its power under Article 226 to quash the cancellation order and grant relief to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.Detailed Judgment: The petitioner's case highlighted their compliance with GST requirements, reliance on an accountant for filings, and the subsequent cancellation of registration. The court referenced a previous judgment emphasizing the need to reintegrate taxpayers into the GST system to prevent tax evasion and maintain the integrity of the regime. The respondent's counsel acknowledged the relevance of the previous judgment in similar cases.The court extracted relevant paragraphs from the previous judgment, emphasizing the necessity of allowing petitioners to return to the GST fold to ensure tax compliance and prevent privileges for non-compliant entities. The judgment underscored the importance of facilitating legitimate trade and commerce while upholding tax obligations.Citing constitutional provisions and legal principles, the court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash the cancellation order and provide relief to the petitioners. Despite the petitioners' past non-compliance and failure to utilize an amnesty scheme, the court deemed it appropriate to grant relief, subject to specified terms and conditions.The court outlined conditions for the petitioners to fulfill, including filing past returns, paying outstanding taxes with interest, and adhering to prescribed procedures for utilizing input tax credits. The judgment emphasized the need for petitioners to comply with GST requirements and for authorities to impose penalties as deterrents against casual approaches to tax compliance.The court directed the respondents to make necessary changes to the GST portal to facilitate the petitioners' compliance with the outlined conditions within specified timeframes. The judgment concluded by disposing of the writ petition in line with the guidelines provided in the referenced previous judgment, without imposing any costs on the petitioners.