TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in view of the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, a petitioner whose GST registration has been cancelled under Section 29(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for non-filing of returns for six continuous months is entitled to have the registration restored upon filing pending returns and making payment of tax, interest and late fees.
Analysis: The Court applied the statutory framework under Section 29(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the procedure in Rule 22 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, in particular the proviso to sub-rule (4) which contemplates dropping cancellation proceedings where the person furnishes all pending returns and makes full payment of tax dues along with applicable interest and late fee, and the prescribed Form GST REG-20. The Court noted that the petitioner had been served with a show cause notice, subsequently furnished pending returns and deposited the outstanding tax, interest and late fee, and that Coordinate Bench decisions in identical circumstances have directed authorities to consider restoration applications filed in terms of the proviso to Rule 22(4). The respondent did not oppose issuing similar directions and the Court found the facts and legal position of the petitioner to be covered by the Coordinate Bench precedent.
Conclusion: The petitioner is entitled to approach the concerned CGST authority for restoration of GST registration; if the petitioner submits an application and complies with the requirements of the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, the authority shall consider and take necessary steps to restore the GST registration in accordance with law within the time directed by the Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
