TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 804
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he parties. Firstly, that the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, did not have the jurisdiction to condone the delay caused in filing the GST Appeal and, therefore, the order dated 18.12.2023, cannot be faulted. Secondly, the State Tax Officer suspended the registration of the Petitioner vide order dated 23.01.2023, with effect from 01.01.2022, only on the ground that the Petitioner failed to submit the tax returns for 6 consecutive months. 4. The Petitioner was registered with the GST Authority with the registration number mentioned in paragraph No. 1 of the petition. He was also registered under the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act. He had a petty business of recovering loan installments for a few banks like....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hs. The Petitioner concedes that no reply was filed on account of his Accountant suffering from Covid-19 related health issues. It is in the absence of the reply that the impugned order dated 23.01.2023 was passed by which, his registration certificate under the MGST Act, was cancelled with effect from 01.01.2022. The order for cancellation of registration indicates the sole reason to be "whereas no reply to notice to show cause has been submitted" and "whereas on the day fixed for hearing you did not appear". However, the impugned order indicates that there is a 'NIL' demand from the Petitioner. The Petitioner makes a statement that after passing of the impugned order, the Petitioner has not indulged in any business. 8. The Petitioner pla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....perused the said judgment, wherein, the learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment delivered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 665/2021 in SMW (C) No. 3/2020), (2021) 18 SCC 250 : 2021 SCC Online SC 949, wherein, it was concluded as under:- "Therefore, we dispose of the M.A. No. 665 of 2021 with the following directions:- I. In computing the period of limitation for any suit; appeal, application or proceeding, the period from March 15, 2020 till October 2, 2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on March 15, 2021, if any, shall become available with effect from October 3, 2021. II. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tments. If the purpose of the GST registration is only to ensure that just tax is paid faithfully by the business operator and such taxes add to the earnings of the State exchequer, the Petitioner can be permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. 13. The learned AGP for the Department relies upon the judgment delivered by the learned Single Bench of the Madras High Court dated 07.12.2022, delivered in Writ Petition No. 32877/2022 (Hemasri Enterprises Vs. Appellate Authority and another), wherein, the concerned Petitioner was permitted to apply for a fresh GST registration. 14. In Sanjeev Suresh Desai Vs. Union of India and others, Writ Petitions No. 2876 and 2891/2021, decided by the learned Division Bench ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deemed to be a revocation of cancellation of registration under this Act." 15. It is, therefore, undisputed before us that the cause of the Petitioner receiving an adverse order from the State Tax Officer, is on account of the lapse on his part in not submitting the tax returns for six consecutive months. Reasons could be varied. However, the fact remains that if the impugned order is sustained, the Petitioner would not be in a position to conduct his business and he would then have to move the appropriate Authority for a fresh registration. If the Petitioner can be permitted to seek a re-hearing before the State Tax Officer, subject to certain conditions for the lapse on its part, ends of justice would be met. 16. The case put forth by ....