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>Tax Registration Restoration Granted with Strict Compliance Requirements Under Specific Conditions for Petitioner's Reinstatement</h1> <h3>M/s. Leeways Integrated Services Private Limited Versus The Commissioner of GST, The Superintendent Madurai, M/s. CALSEA Footwear Private Limited Ranipet, M/s. SAC Engine Components Private Limited Thiruvallur, M/s. AMWAY India Enterprises Private Limited Dindigul</h3> The HC Madras nullified the previous order and mandated the petitioner to fulfill specific conditions for registration restoration, including filing tax ... Condonation of delay in filing appeal - only ground on which the impugned order has been passed is that the appeal was filed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 117 of the TNGST Act, 2017 - Cancellation of GST Registrations - returns not filed for a continuous period of 6 months - Section 29 of the TNGST Act, 2017 r/w Rule 22 of TNGST Rules - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered 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] where it was held that 'The petitioners are directed to file their returns for the period prior to the cancellation of registration, if such returns have not been already filed, together with tax defaulted which has not been paid prior to cancellation along with interest for such belated payment of tax and fine and fee fixed for belated filing of returns for the defaulted period under the provisions of the Act, within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it has not been already paid.' The impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 15.02.2023, is set aside. The petitioner is directed to comply with the above requirements. Subject to the petitioner complying with the above requirements, the registration of the petitioner shall be restored - Petition allowed. The High Court of Madras set aside the impugned order and directed the petitioner to comply with specified conditions for restoration of registration. The petitioner must file returns, pay tax, penalty, and fine, and not use unutilized Input Tax Credit. The registration will be restored upon compliance.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
