Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his GST registration, which had been cancelled by the department under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017 due to continuous non-filing of GST monthly returns. The petitioner submitted that the returns could not be filed because of health issues. Although a show cause notice had been issued prior to cancellation, the petitioner failed to submit the required returns and could not file the application for revocation of cancellation within the prescribed time limit.

The petitioner approached the Madras High Court seeking quashing of the cancellation order and restoration of the GST registration.

 Issues Involved


  1. Whether GST registration cancelled for non-filing of returns can be restored even after expiry of the statutory period for revocation.
  2. Whether the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction to revive GST registration by following the principles laid down in earlier judgments.
  3. Whether genuine hardship such as health issues justifies granting relief despite procedural delay.

 Petitioner's Arguments


  • The petitioner contended that GST returns could not be filed due to serious health issues.
  • It was argued that the delay in filing the application for revocation was neither intentional nor deliberate.
  • Reliance was placed on the landmark judgment in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) & Others, wherein the Madras High Court permitted restoration of cancelled GST registrations subject to payment of tax, interest, penalty and filing of pending returns.
  • The petitioner requested similar relief on identical facts.

 Respondent's Arguments


  • The department maintained that the GST registration had been cancelled in accordance with Section 29 of the CGST Act because of continuous default in filing GST returns.
  • The cancellation followed issuance of a statutory show cause notice.
  • Since the petitioner had not sought revocation within the prescribed period, the cancellation order had attained finality.

 Court Order / Findings


The Madras High Court observed that the issue was fully covered by its earlier landmark judgment in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) & Others, which had consistently been followed in several subsequent cases.

The Court noted that the Revenue had accepted the principles laid down in the Suguna Cutpiece judgment and had not preferred appeals against those decisions. Accordingly, the Court held that the petitioner was also entitled to identical relief.

The writ petition was allowed by directing that the petitioner be granted the benefit of the directions contained in paragraph 229 of the Suguna Cutpiece judgment, including:

  • Filing all pending GST returns.
  • Payment of outstanding tax, interest, late fee and penalty.
  • Payment to be made in cash without adjustment against unutilised Input Tax Credit.
  • Scrutiny of Input Tax Credit before future utilisation.
  • Restoration of GST registration after compliance with the prescribed conditions.
  • GST portal to facilitate filing of pending returns in accordance with the Court's directions. 

Important Clarification

  • Cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns does not automatically deprive a taxpayer of relief under writ jurisdiction.
  • The Madras High Court reaffirmed that taxpayers facing genuine hardship may obtain restoration of registration by complying with the conditions prescribed in Suguna Cutpiece.
  • Pending returns must be filed along with payment of applicable tax, interest, late fee and penalty.
  • Unutilised Input Tax Credit cannot be used for payment unless scrutinised and approved by the competent GST authority.
  • This judgment reinforces the consistent judicial approach adopted by the Madras High Court in GST registration cancellation matters.

 Important Related Case Laws


  • Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) & Others (Leading Judgment)
  • M/s. Maaruthi Foundations Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
  • J. Jayakrishnan vs. Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
  • TVL. Jeyalakshmi Store vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
  • M/s. Pearl and Company vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes)

Link to Download the Order https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1784528569_1007compressed.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.