TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Taxpayer's Challenge Fails: Missed Deadlines and Amnesty Scheme Nullify Appeal Against Registration Cancellation</h1> <h3>Suman Devi Versus The Union of India, Joint Commissioner (Appeals) of CGST and CX (Appeals), Assistant Commissioner of CGST, Additional Commissioner /Superintendent CGST</h3> Suman Devi Versus The Union of India, Joint Commissioner (Appeals) of CGST and CX (Appeals), Assistant Commissioner of CGST, Additional Commissioner ... Issues involved: Cancellation of registration, delay in availing appellate remedy, applicability of limitation period, failure to utilize Amnesty Scheme, non-filing of returns leading to cancellation.The High Court judgment addressed the issue of cancellation of registration due to a delay in availing the appellate remedy. The petitioner had failed to file an appeal within the stipulated time frame, even after the limitation period was extended due to the pandemic situation. The court emphasized that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked when alternate remedies are available and the party has not been diligent in utilizing them within the specified time.The judgment also considered the applicability of the Amnesty Scheme introduced by the Government, allowing registered dealers to restore their registration by paying outstanding dues within a specified period. The petitioner in this case did not take advantage of this scheme, further weakening their position in seeking relief from the court.Moreover, the court noted that the petitioner had not contested the receipt of the show-cause notice for cancellation of registration. The reason cited for cancellation was the non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate that returns had indeed been filed during this period. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, highlighting the importance of complying with statutory requirements to maintain registration status.
TaxTMI 