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>GST Registration Cancelled for Non-Filing Returns; Possible Restoration if Compliance Met Under Rule 22(4) CGST Rules</h1> <h3>Pawan Kumar Singh @ Sri Pawan Singh Versus The Union Of India And, The Principal Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax Assam., The Superintendent Central Goods And Service Tax Tezpur.</h3> Pawan Kumar Singh @ Sri Pawan Singh Versus The Union Of India And, The Principal Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax Assam., The Superintendent ... ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary issues considered by the Court were: Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration under Section 29(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, due to non-furnishing of returns for a continuous period of six months or more, was justified. Whether the petitioner could seek restoration of the GST registration by complying with the requirements prescribed under the CGST Rules, particularly the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Justification of GST Registration Cancellation Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 allows for the cancellation of GST registration if a registered person fails to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months. Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 outlines the procedure for such cancellation. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice for not furnishing returns for the specified period, which is a valid ground for cancellation under the CGST Act. The Court acknowledged the procedural requirements of Rule 22, which were followed by the authorities. Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner failed to notice the show cause notice uploaded on the common portal, resulting in non-compliance. The cancellation order was passed after the petitioner did not respond to the notice. Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied Section 29(2)(c) and Rule 22 to the facts, confirming that the cancellation was procedurally correct given the petitioner's non-compliance. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner argued that the non-compliance was due to reasons beyond his control and expressed willingness to comply with the requirements for restoration. The Court considered this argument in the context of the proviso to Rule 22(4). Conclusions: The Court concluded that the cancellation was justified under the CGST Act and Rules but noted the possibility of restoration if the petitioner complied with the necessary requirements.Issue 2: Restoration of GST Registration Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 allows for the dropping of cancellation proceedings if the person furnishes all pending returns and pays the tax dues along with applicable interest and late fees. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court interpreted the proviso as providing a mechanism for restoration of registration if the petitioner complies with the specified requirements. The Court referred to a similar case, highlighting the consistency in legal interpretation. Key Evidence and Findings: The Court noted the petitioner's readiness to comply with the requirements for restoration. The petitioner was directed to approach the concerned authority within two months to seek restoration. Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the proviso to Rule 22(4) to the petitioner's situation, allowing for the possibility of restoration upon compliance. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court balanced the procedural correctness of the cancellation with the petitioner's willingness to rectify the non-compliance, providing a path for restoration. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the petitioner could seek restoration of GST registration by complying with the requirements outlined in the proviso to Rule 22(4).SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Core Principles Established: The Court reinforced the principle that GST registration can be canceled for non-furnishing of returns as per Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017. However, it also established that restoration is possible if the taxpayer complies with the requirements under the CGST Rules. Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court upheld the cancellation of the GST registration but provided a pathway for restoration, contingent upon the petitioner's compliance with the prescribed requirements.The Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to approach the concerned authority within two months and comply with the requirements for restoration of GST registration. The authority is to consider the application for restoration in accordance with the law and take necessary steps for restoration as expeditiously as possible. No costs were awarded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
