2025 (3) TMI 1235 - HC - GST

GST Registration Reinstatement Possible for Non-Filing; Must Meet Conditions from Suguna Cutpiece Center Case

The HC ruled that the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration for non-filing of returns over six months was subject to reinstatement under ... Cancellation of the registration of the petitioner - statutory returns has not been filed for a continuous period of six months - petitioner is ready to pay any further taxes that may be due, along with late fee and interest, as required under GST Act - HELD THAT:- This Court has been consistently following the directions issued in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Center's case [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 benefit extended by this Court vide its earlier order in Suguna Cutpiece Center's case, may be extended to the petitioner. Petition disposed off. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issue presented and considered in this judgment is whether the cancellation of the petitioner's registration under the GST Act due to non-filing of statutory returns for a continuous period of six months is valid and whether the registration can be reinstated under the conditions set forth by the court in previous judgments.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant Legal Framework and PrecedentsThe issue revolves around the application of Section 29(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act), which allows for the cancellation of registration if the registered person fails to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months. The court referenced the precedent set in the case of Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others, which established a framework for the reinstatement of registration under similar circumstances.Court's Interpretation and ReasoningThe court recognized that the issue at hand was substantively similar to the one addressed in the Suguna Cutpiece Center case. The court's reasoning was based on the principle of consistency in legal decisions, emphasizing that the same relief should be extended to the petitioner as was granted in the earlier case. The court highlighted that the petitioner had expressed willingness to comply with the requirements of filing returns and paying any outstanding taxes, fees, and interest.Key Evidence and FindingsThe petitioner submitted that they had filed the necessary returns and paid the appropriate taxes, with a readiness to pay any further dues. This submission was not contested by the respondent, and both parties acknowledged that the issue was covered by the precedent set in the Suguna Cutpiece Center case.Application of Law to FactsApplying the legal framework from the Suguna Cutpiece Center case, the court directed the petitioner to comply with specific conditions for the reinstatement of their GST registration. These conditions included filing returns for the period prior to the cancellation, paying any defaulted taxes along with interest and penalties, and ensuring that any input tax credit is scrutinized and approved before utilization.Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThere were no significant competing arguments presented in this case. Both parties agreed that the issue was governed by the earlier judgment, and the court did not encounter any substantial opposition to extending the same relief to the petitioner.ConclusionsThe court concluded that the petitioner should be granted the benefit of the previous judgment in the Suguna Cutpiece Center case, allowing for the revocation of the cancellation of their GST registration subject to compliance with the specified conditions.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe court upheld the principles established in the Suguna Cutpiece Center case, emphasizing the importance of consistency in judicial decisions. The significant holdings include:Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning'In the light of the above discussion, these Writ Petitions are allowed subject to the following conditions...'Core Principles EstablishedThe court reaffirmed the principle that registration cancellations under Section 29(2) of the CGST Act can be revoked if the petitioner complies with specified conditions, ensuring that statutory obligations are fulfilled.Final Determinations on Each IssueThe court determined that the petitioner's GST registration should be reinstated, provided they adhere to the conditions outlined in the judgment, including the timely filing of returns, payment of taxes, and proper scrutiny of input tax credits.Overall, the judgment reflects a commitment to ensuring that procedural lapses in tax compliance can be remedied, allowing businesses to continue operations while maintaining adherence to statutory requirements.