2025 (10) TMI 1119 - HC - GST

GST registration cancellation suspended after taxpayer deposits substantial dues; must undertake compliance and regular return filing

HC suspended cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration after finding the petitioner had deposited a substantial outstanding tax amount with ... Cancellation of GST registration certificate of the petitioner - petitioner had not furnished returns of income for continuous six months - HELD THAT:- Having perused the material on record, it appears that there is no other contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner has deposited the amount of outstanding substantial amount of outstanding tax with interest and late fees. The petitioner shall file an undertaking before this Court that the petitioner shall abide by the provisions of the GST Act and the GST Rules and shall be regular in filing the returns in future, failing which, the registration of the petitioner shall be cancelled automatically. The respondents are therefore, directed to consider the pending returns filed by the petitioner by suspending the order of cancellation of registration and if the same are found in accordance with law, call upon the petitioner to pay the outstanding dues, if any, forthwith - Petition disposed off. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether an order of cancellation of GST registration passed under Rule 22(1) of the GST Rules, 2017 can be suspended/treated as revocable where the assessee has filed pending returns and deposited substantial tax, interest and late fees after cancellation. 2. Whether rejection of an application for revocation of cancellation for delay (appeal dismissed for delay) can be set aside in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where the registrant offers to (a) file outstanding returns, (b) pay outstanding dues, and (c) furnish an undertaking to comply with statutory obligations in future. 3. The appropriate scope of directions that a writ court may give to revenue authorities when registration has been cancelled but returns are filed and dues are paid post-cancellation. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 1: Suspension/Revocation of Cancellation where returns filed and dues paid Legal framework: Rule 22(1) of the GST Rules, 2017 (procedure for cancellation of registration on grounds including non-furnishing of returns for continuous six months); provisions enabling revocation of cancellation; statutory regime requires filing of returns and payment of tax, interest and late fees to regularize registration. Precedent treatment: No previous judicial precedents were cited or applied by the Court in the judgment; the Court proceeded on statutory scheme and facts. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the registrant had filed pending GSTR-3B returns up to a defined period and deposited substantial amounts towards tax, interest and late fees (detailed challan amounts verified by the Assistant Government Pleader). Given these steps, the Court reasoned that the revenue authority should consider the pending returns and, if they are in order, determine and call for any outstanding liability so that the order of cancellation may be revoked. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where a registrant submits pending returns and makes deposit of dues after cancellation, the authority ought to examine those returns and, if compliant, allow revocation on payment of outstanding dues. Obiter - none significant beyond factual amplification. Conclusions: The Court directed suspension of cancellation and ordered the respondent authority to consider the pending returns and, if found lawful, call upon the registrant to pay outstanding dues, after which the cancellation shall stand revoked. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 2: Rejection of revocation application and delay in appeal where registrant remedies defaults Legal framework: Section 107 (appeal to first appellate authority) of the GST Act (appeal against order of rejecting revocation), procedural timelines for filing appeal; power of writ court under Article 226 to grant equitable relief when statutory remedies lead to harsh outcomes. Precedent treatment: No precedents invoked; Court applied principles of administrative fairness and practicality inherent in writ jurisdiction. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court acknowledged that the first appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on the ground of delay (11 months and 4 days). Having regard to the petitioner's conduct of subsequently filing returns and depositing substantial dues, the Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct the revenue to entertain and consider the pending returns and to permit revocation upon compliance. The Court conditioned relief on the petitioner's undertaking to abide by GST law and be regular in future filings, recognizing the authority's role to assess remaining liability in accordance with law. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - delay in filing appeal does not preclude writ relief where the registrant has remedied defaults (filed returns and paid dues) and offers an undertaking; Court may direct authorities to consider revocation subject to payment of outstanding dues. Obiter - emphasis on absence of mala fide and on financial hardship as explanation for defaults, which does not bind future cases. Conclusions: The Court set aside the consequences of the appellate dismissal to the extent of directing consideration of the returns and potential revocation, subject to payment of any additional dues and the petitioner's undertaking. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 3: Scope of writ relief and conditions to be imposed Legal framework: Article 226 writ jurisdiction enabling courts to issue directions to administrative authorities; statutory requirement for regular filing of returns and payment of dues under GST statute and rules. Precedent treatment: No precedents referenced; Court relied on equitable exercise of jurisdiction consistent with statutory compliance. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court balanced the statutory mandate to maintain compliance with taxpayers' remedial conduct. It required (a) an undertaking by the registrant to comply with the GST Act and Rules and be regular in future filings, (b) that respondents consider the pending returns and verify payments already made, and (c) that any outstanding dues be paid forthwith if found due. The Court made clear that failure to comply with the undertaking would render the registration liable to automatic cancellation. This combination of conditions reflects a protective but conditional invocation of writ powers to restore registration where defaults have been cured. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - a writ court may grant conditional relief (suspension/revocation) by directing authorities to consider returns and call for any residual payment, subject to a registrant's undertaking; failure of the undertaking can justify subsequent cancellation. Obiter - procedural specifics (timeframes for compliance) are not prescribed and left to administrative action consistent with law. Conclusions: The Court directed (i) filing of an undertaking by the registrant, (ii) suspension of cancellation to enable administrative verification of returns and deposits, and (iii) revocation of cancellation upon payment of any additional verified dues. The Court refused to award costs. Cross-references and operative effect 1. Issue 1 and Issue 2 are interrelated: remedial acts by the registrant (filing returns and payment) form the factual basis permitting equitable intervention on appeal delay grounds. 2. Issue 3 operationalizes Issues 1-2 by prescribing the procedural steps and conditions for the authority to follow for possible revocation. Final disposition (as applied to issues) The Court, exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226, directed suspension of the cancellation, ordered the registrant to file an undertaking to comply with the GST law, directed the revenue authority to consider pending returns and verify payments, and to call upon payment of any outstanding dues, after which revocation shall follow; failure to comply with the undertaking will lead to automatic cancellation. No costs were awarded.