GST registration cancellation upheld for non-filing returns but restored due to lack of notice and genuine health issues under relevant rules

The HC held that cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration for non-filing of GSTR-3B returns was valid but noted the petitioner was unaware of the show cause notice due to lack of physical service, violating natural justice. The petitioner's claim of ill health causing non-compliance was accepted as genuine. The court allowed restoration of GST registration subject to conditions and directed the respondent to instruct GST Network to modify the portal to enable filing returns and payment of dues within four weeks. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

• Whether the cancellation of GST registration on the ground of non-filing of GSTR-3B returns was valid.
• Whether the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity of hearing before cancellation, specifically regarding the mode of service of the show cause notice.
• Whether the petitioner's failure to file returns due to the ill health of the Director constitutes a sufficient cause to set aside the cancellation order.
• Whether the limitation period for filing appeal against the cancellation order affects the petitioner's remedy.
• Whether restoration of GST registration can be granted and under what conditions, including compliance with outstanding tax dues and procedural safeguards.
• Whether Input Tax Credit (ITC) utilization should be restricted pending scrutiny after restoration of registration.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of Cancellation of GST Registration for Non-filing of GSTR-3B

- Legal Framework and Precedents: The GST law mandates timely filing of GSTR-3B returns as a compliance requirement. Non-filing is a ground for cancellation of registration under the relevant GST provisions. The procedure requires issuance of a show cause notice before cancellation.

- Court's Reasoning: The Court noted that the petitioner admittedly failed to file GSTR-3B returns, which is a statutory ground for cancellation. The impugned cancellation order was passed following issuance of a show cause notice.

- Evidence and Findings: The petitioner's default in filing returns was undisputed. The respondent issued a show cause notice on 05.01.2024 and cancelled registration on 15.03.2024.

- Application of Law to Facts: The cancellation was legally permissible due to non-compliance with filing requirements.

- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner argued non-receipt of physical notice and lack of awareness, but the Court found the issuance via GST portal sufficient under the law.

- Conclusion: The cancellation order was valid in law based on non-filing of returns.

Issue 2: Adequacy of Opportunity of Hearing and Mode of Service of Show Cause Notice

- Legal Framework: Principles of natural justice require that a show cause notice be served in a manner that ensures the recipient's awareness and opportunity to respond.

- Court's Reasoning: The petitioner contended that no physical copy of the notice was served and that they were unaware of the show cause notice, which prevented filing a reply.

- Evidence and Findings: The notice was uploaded on the GST portal, which is the prescribed mode of communication in GST procedures.

- Application of Law to Facts: The Court held that uploading the notice on the portal constituted valid service and that the petitioner had constructive notice.

- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner's claim of ignorance due to non-physical service was not accepted as sufficient to invalidate the procedure.

- Conclusion: The procedure of serving the notice through the GST portal complied with legal requirements and principles of natural justice.

Issue 3: Sufficiency of Cause for Non-filing of Returns Due to Ill Health

- Legal Framework: While the law mandates compliance, courts may consider genuine and unavoidable reasons for non-compliance in exercising discretionary relief.

- Court's Reasoning: The petitioner's explanation of the Director's ill health was accepted as a genuine cause for non-filing.

- Evidence and Findings: The petitioner's submission was uncontroverted and considered credible by the Court.

- Application of Law to Facts: The Court exercised discretion in favour of the petitioner, acknowledging the genuine difficulty.

- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent did not dispute the claim but emphasized legal compliance.

- Conclusion: The petitioner's reason constituted sufficient cause to consider restoration of registration despite non-filing.

Issue 4: Effect of Lapse of Limitation Period for Filing Appeal

- Legal Framework: Statutory limitation periods apply to appeals against cancellation orders under GST law.

- Court's Reasoning: The petitioner admitted that the limitation period for appeal had expired, limiting statutory remedies.

- Evidence and Findings: The petitioner could not file an appeal within the prescribed time.

- Application of Law to Facts: The Court acknowledged the limitation but proceeded to consider relief under writ jurisdiction.

- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent relied on limitation as a bar to challenge.

- Conclusion: Although statutory appeal was time-barred, the Court exercised writ jurisdiction to grant conditional relief.

Issue 5: Conditions for Restoration of GST Registration

- Legal Framework: Restoration of cancelled GST registration is permissible subject to compliance with statutory conditions, including payment of dues and filing of returns.

- Court's Reasoning: The Court ordered restoration subject to strict conditions to ensure compliance and safeguard revenue interests.

- Key Directions:

• The respondent to coordinate with GST Network to enable filing of returns and payment of dues within four weeks.
• The petitioner to file all pending returns and pay tax dues, interest, and late fees within four weeks of restoration.
• Prohibition on using Input Tax Credit (ITC) to pay outstanding dues until approval by competent authority.
• ITC utilization allowed only after departmental scrutiny and approval.
• Automatic cessation of restoration benefit if conditions are not complied with.

- Application of Law to Facts: The Court balanced the petitioner's genuine cause with the need to protect tax revenue and ensure compliance.

- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent's insistence on payment and compliance was incorporated into the conditional restoration.

- Conclusion: Restoration granted on strict conditional terms to ensure compliance and safeguard revenue.

Issue 6: Restriction on Utilization of Input Tax Credit (ITC)

- Legal Framework: ITC can be utilized only as per prescribed rules and after scrutiny to prevent misuse.

- Court's Reasoning: The Court restricted ITC utilization pending departmental scrutiny to prevent adjustment against outstanding dues without approval.

- Evidence and Findings: The petitioner may have unutilized ITC, but its use was to be regulated.

- Application of Law to Facts: The Court mandated that only approved ITC may be used for future tax liabilities post scrutiny.

- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court adopted a cautious approach to protect revenue interests.

- Conclusion: ITC utilization restricted until departmental approval, ensuring proper compliance and preventing misuse.

---