Facts of the Case
Kanavaipatty Panchayat, represented by its Special
Officer/BDO P. Kamaraj, approached the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court
by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner sought issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to call for the records relating to the respondent’s order bearing
Reference No. ZA330725215372S dated 21.07.2025, quash the same as illegal and
arbitrary, and direct the respondent to revoke the cancellation of the
petitioner’s GST registration within such time as may be directed by the Court.
When the matter came up for hearing, both the
learned counsel were ad idem that the issue was covered by the earlier judgment
of the Madras High Court in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center vs The Appellate
Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), Salem and Erode, rendered in W.P. Nos.25048
of 2021 etc. batch cases.
Accordingly, the High Court considered the
operative directions contained in paragraph 229 of the Suguna Cutpiece Center
judgment and disposed of the present writ petition on the same terms.
Issues
Involved
The principal issues arising in the matter were:
- Whether the GST registration cancellation order dated 21.07.2025
was liable to be set aside in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether the petitioner was entitled to revival of its cancelled GST
registration.
- Whether the dispute was directly covered by the principles and
conditional relief granted in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center vs The
Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), Salem and Erode.
- Whether revival of GST registration could be granted subject to
filing pending returns and payment of tax, interest, fine/fee and other
applicable amounts.
- Whether unutilized, unclaimed or earned Input Tax Credit could be
used immediately, or only after scrutiny and approval by the competent GST
authority.
Petitioner’s
Arguments
The petitioner challenged the cancellation order
dated 21.07.2025 and sought restoration of its GST registration.
The petitioner’s case, as reflected in the relief
sought before the Court, was that the impugned cancellation order should be
quashed and the respondent should be directed to revoke the cancellation of GST
registration.
At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner
agreed that the matter was covered by the judgment in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece
Center vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), Salem and Erode.
Therefore, the petitioner sought the benefit of the
same legal framework and conditional relief applicable to restoration of cancelled
GST registrations.
Respondent’s
Arguments
The respondent was represented by the learned
Government Standing Counsel.
At the hearing, both learned counsel were ad idem
that the matter was covered by the judgment in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center
vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), Salem and Erode.
Thus, the respondent’s side also accepted the
applicability of the earlier judgment to the present dispute.
Court Order
/ Findings
The Madras High Court recorded that both sides
agreed that the matter was covered by the earlier decision in Tvl. Suguna
Cutpiece Center vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), Salem and
Erode.
In view of the same, the High Court set aside
the impugned order dated 21.07.2025 and allowed the writ petition on the
same terms as the conditions extracted from paragraph 229 of the Suguna
Cutpiece Center judgment.
The conditions governing the relief are as follows:
- Pending Returns Before Cancellation:
The petitioner is required to file returns for the period prior to cancellation of registration, if such returns have not already been filed, together with the defaulted tax that remained unpaid prior to cancellation, along with interest for belated payment of tax and the fine and fee fixed for belated filing of returns for the defaulted period, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, if not already paid. - No Adjustment from Input Tax Credit:
Payment of tax, interest, fine/fee and other applicable amounts shall not be made or adjusted out of Input Tax Credit lying unutilized or unclaimed in the hands of the petitioner. - Restriction on Existing Input Tax Credit:
Any Input Tax Credit remaining available cannot be utilized until it is scrutinized and approved by the appropriate or competent officer of the Department. - Use of Approved ITC:
Only such Input Tax Credit as is approved after scrutiny shall be permitted to be utilized thereafter for discharging future tax liability under the applicable Act and Rules. - Post-Cancellation Period Compliance:
The petitioner is also required to pay GST and file returns for the period subsequent to cancellation of registration by declaring the correct value of supplies. Such GST payment is required to be made in cash. - ITC Earned During the Relevant Period:
If any Input Tax Credit was earned, it may be utilized only after scrutiny and approval by the respondents or any other competent authority. - Departmental Restrictions to Prevent ITC Misuse:
The respondents may impose such restrictions or limitations as may be warranted to prevent undue passing of Input Tax Credit pending scrutiny and to ensure that there is no violation or attempt at bill trading by taking advantage of the order. - Revival of Registration:
Upon payment of tax and penalty and uploading of returns, the GST registration shall stand revived forthwith. - GST Portal Enablement:
The respondents are required to take suitable steps by instructing GST Network, New Delhi, to make suitable changes in the GST web portal architecture so as to permit filing of returns and payment of tax, penalty and fine. - Time Limit for Departmental Exercise:
The required exercise is to be carried out by the respondents within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. - Costs:
The High Court ordered no costs.
Important
Clarification
The judgment does not grant unconditional
restoration of GST registration. The relief is expressly governed by the
conditions adopted from the earlier judgment in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center
vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), Salem and Erode.
A particularly important clarification is that:
- tax, interest, fine/fee and other applicable amounts cannot be paid
or adjusted from unutilized or unclaimed ITC;
- GST liability for the post-cancellation period is required to be
discharged in cash;
- ITC cannot be utilized until scrutiny and approval by the competent
authority;
- only approved ITC can subsequently be utilized for future tax
liabilities;
- the Department may impose restrictions to prevent undue passing of
ITC or bill trading; and
- upon compliance involving payment of tax and penalty and uploading
of returns, registration shall stand revived forthwith.
The ruling therefore balances restoration of GST
registration with strict tax-compliance safeguards and ITC scrutiny.
Sections /
Legal Provisions Involved
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
- GST statutory framework relating to cancellation and revival of
registration – The dispute concerns cancellation and
restoration/revival of GST registration.
- GST provisions governing filing of returns – Relevant to pending returns for periods before and after
cancellation.
- GST provisions governing payment of tax and interest – Relevant to defaulted tax and belated payment.
- GST provisions governing fine/fee for delayed filing of returns – Applicable to defaulted return periods.
- Input Tax Credit provisions under the GST law and Rules – Relevant to scrutiny, approval and restricted utilization of
ITC.
Important Note on Section Citation: The operative order itself does not expressly identify a specific
CGST/TNGST section number for cancellation or revocation. Therefore, no
specific statutory section number should be attributed to the Court beyond what
is expressly recorded in the judgment. The writ petition was expressly filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Link to download the order -
https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783065928_373compressed.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment