TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1414
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1-062-21-22 dated 14th October, 2021. The appeal is filed under Section 112(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "Central Act"), read with Section 112(4) thereof. For brevity and convenience, any reference to the "Act" or the "Central Act" shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be understood to include the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter the "State Act"), the provisions of which correspond with and are intended to operate concurrently with those of the Central Act. 2. The Appellant-Department (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellant"), being aggrieved by the order impugned herein, has preferred the present appeal. The principal contention of the Appellant is that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e allowing the appeal and revoking the cancellation, had exercised caution and directed the proper officer to verify the correctness of the claim of the respondent herein that the returns had been filed and taxes paid for the relevant period. 4. The appellant herein contends that the FAA had not considered the requirements of Rule 23(1) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017 (the Rules) and the proviso to the said rule. It is their grievance that the FAA ought to have ensured that not only the taxes is paid, but also should have considered the payment of interest, late fee and penalty. To this extent, the Appellants are of the view that the order impugned is not legal and proper and consequently it is prayed, as in their DRC-07 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalty are paid by them along with the taxes for the relevant period? 8. Heard Ld. DR and also noted the arguments advanced by him as well as their grounds of the appeal and other documents filed by them. 9. The crux of the issue is to decide whether the FAA had exceeded his jurisdiction in not acting within the parameters of Rule 23 of the Rules and restored the registration without causing any proper verification. Before we proceed to decide the issue, it is imperative to note the provisions of Rule 23(1) of the Rules. The relevant portion of the said rule is reproduced below for ease of reference: Rule 23. Revocation of cancellation of registration. - (1) A registered person, whose registration is cancelled by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... effective date of cancellation of registration till the date of order of revocation of cancellation of registration within a period of thirty days from the date of order of revocation of cancellation of registration]. 10. For the record, the liability arising from the returns under consideration is not confined to the principal tax alone but expressly extends to interest, late fee and penalty. These ancillary components constitute substantive obligations flowing from the statutory and regulatory scheme governing return filing and tax payment, and are therefore integral to the correct adjudication of any dispute about the returns. 11. The First Appellate Authority, however, approached the appeals solely on the basis of verification of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Failure to invoke that remedy, and instead to seek relief in this Forum, is inconsistent with the orderly operation of the recovery regime and risks circumvention of the statutory process. 15. The Appellant has contended that the FAA ought to have ensured that the respondent shall, apart from tax, pay interest, late fee and penalty, as contemplated under Rule 23 of the Rules. We observe that the FAA had, while allowing the appeal filed under Section 107 of the Act, had clearly directed the proper officer to cause necessary verification of payment of tax and filing of returns. The only provision that envisages such a requirement is the provisions of Rule 23 and therefore, the Appellants have sought for interest, late fee and penalty. We....