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>HC restores GST registration despite time-barred appeal, emphasizes livelihood rights over technical limitations for small entrepreneurs</h1> <h3>M/s. M.G. Exim, Proprietor, Meenatchi Gajendran Elenkathir. Versus The Assistant Commissioner (Circle) (ST), Chokkikulam Assessment Circle, Madurai.</h3> M/s. M.G. Exim, Proprietor, Meenatchi Gajendran Elenkathir. Versus The Assistant Commissioner (Circle) (ST), Chokkikulam Assessment Circle, Madurai. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Cancellation of GST Registration2. Non-filing of GST Returns3. Statutory Limitation for Appeals4. Right to Livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution5. Procedural Fairness and Communication in GST NoticesDetailed Analysis:1. Cancellation of GST Registration:The petitioner, a contractor executing works for the Government, had his GST registration (No. 33AAZPE3354N1Z7) cancelled by the respondent due to non-filing of returns for six months. The petitioner argued that the failure was due to his accountant not filing the returns timely, and he was unaware of the proceedings, thus missing the appeal window.2. Non-filing of GST Returns:The petitioner claimed that he was under the bona fide belief that his accountant was handling the GST returns. The respondent countered that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunities to respond to the show cause notice issued on 15.07.2022 but failed to do so, leading to the cancellation of his registration.3. Statutory Limitation for Appeals:The petitioner could not file an appeal within the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 107(4) of the GST Act. The respondent emphasized that the statute prescribes a specific limitation period of 90 days for filing an appeal, which the petitioner failed to meet.4. Right to Livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution:The court referenced a similar case dealt with by the Bombay High Court, highlighting that the right to carry on trade or profession is protected under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution. The court noted that the stringent provisions of the GST Act should not deny a citizen's right to livelihood, especially in unique circumstances like health issues or the pandemic.5. Procedural Fairness and Communication in GST Notices:The court observed that many small-scale entrepreneurs are not well-versed with handling emails and advanced technologies. It suggested that the GST department should consider issuing notices in regional languages and through SMS to ensure better communication with traders who might otherwise miss critical information due to language barriers or unfamiliarity with digital communication.Conclusion:The court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the guidelines provided in the Suguna Cutpiece case. It emphasized that the GST department should take appropriate actions to amend relevant provisions to consider the consequences on traders and ensure procedural fairness. The registry was directed to mark a copy of the order to the Principal Chief Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Tamil Nadu & Puducherry.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
