Facts of the Case
- The
petitioner, M/s Hanuman Agro Products, approached the High Court under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
- The
petitioner’s GST registration had been cancelled by order dated 12
November 2021 on account of non-filing of returns.
- The
petitioner sought quashing of:
- the
order for cancellation of registration dated 12 November 2021; and
- the
endorsement/communication dated 17 October 2022 issued by the respondent.
- The
petitioner also sought a direction permitting submission of returns by
revoking the cancellation order and consideration of the monthly returns
already filed for the relevant earlier period along with the returns
proposed to be filed subsequently.
- The
petitioner further sought consideration of its application/representation
dated 24 September 2022 for permitting filing of returns by revoking the
cancellation of registration.
- According
to the petitioner, it could not take the necessary steps for seeking
revocation within the prescribed period because of the prevailing COVID-19
pandemic and non-receipt of payments from its purchasers, who were stated
to be primarily Government agencies.
- The
petitioner asserted that its failure to seek revocation within the
prescribed period was attributable to bona fide reasons, unavoidable
circumstances and sufficient cause.
- The
petitioner stated that it was subsequently ready and willing to pay tax by
filing returns, but the returns were not accepted because the portal was
closed.
- Consequently,
the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Issues Involved
The principal issues involved were:
- Whether
the petitioner’s delayed request for revocation of cancellation of GST
registration deserved reconsideration despite expiry of the prescribed
period.
- Whether
the circumstances pleaded by the petitioner, including the COVID-19
pandemic and non-receipt of payments from purchasers primarily comprising
Government agencies, constituted bona fide reasons, unavoidable
circumstances and sufficient cause.
- Whether
the impugned communication/endorsement dated 17 October 2022 rejecting or
not granting the petitioner’s request for revocation warranted
interference under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
- Whether,
in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent should
be directed to reconsider revocation of cancellation without reference to
the period of limitation.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that:
- Its
GST registration was cancelled on 12 November 2021 due to non-filing of
returns.
- It
could not seek revocation of cancellation within the prescribed period
because of circumstances arising from the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic.
- The
petitioner had also not received payments from its purchasers, who were
primarily Government agencies, which contributed to its inability to take
timely steps.
- The
omission to seek revocation within the prescribed period was due to bona
fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause.
- The
petitioner was subsequently ready and willing to pay the tax by filing
returns.
- However,
the returns could not be accepted because the portal had been closed.
- In
view of these circumstances, the petitioner sought judicial intervention
for reconsideration of its request for revocation of cancellation.
Respondent’s Arguments
The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the
respondent opposed the writ petition and submitted that there was no merit in
the petition.
Court Order / Findings
The Karnataka High Court made the following material findings
and directions:
- The
Court noted that the petitioner’s GST registration had been cancelled on
12 November 2021.
- The
Court examined the petitioner’s representation dated 24 September 2022
seeking revocation of cancellation.
- The
Court found that the representation clearly indicated that the petitioner
had made out sufficient cause for seeking revocation.
- The
Court further found that the petitioner’s inability and omission to seek
revocation of cancellation within the prescribed period arose from bona
fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause.
- In
these circumstances, the Court considered it appropriate to adopt a
justice-oriented approach.
- The
impugned communication/endorsement dated 17 October 2022 was quashed.
- The
respondent was directed to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for
revocation of cancellation of GST registration without reference to the
period of limitation.
- The
reconsideration was directed to be undertaken in accordance with law and
as expeditiously as possible.
- The
writ petition was accordingly allowed.
Important Clarification
The High Court expressly clarified that the order was passed
in the peculiar and special facts and circumstances of the particular case.
Most importantly, the Court specifically stated that the order
shall not be treated as a precedent for any purpose whatsoever.
Accordingly, the ruling should not be understood as laying
down a general proposition that limitation for revocation of cancellation of
GST registration must be ignored in every case. The relief was granted because
the Court found sufficient cause, bona fide reasons and unavoidable
circumstances in the specific factual setting placed before it.
Sections / Legal Provisions Involved
·
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India
The writ petition was filed invoking the constitutional writ and supervisory
jurisdiction of the High Court.
·
Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017 / corresponding State GST provisions
Relevant to cancellation of GST registration.
·
Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017 / corresponding State GST provisions
Relevant to revocation of cancellation of registration.
·
Rule 23 of the Central Goods and Services Tax
Rules, 2017 / corresponding State GST Rules
Relevant to the procedure governing revocation of cancellation of registration.
Link to download the order -
https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783400531_1181compressed.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