Petitioner filed all pending GST Returns: Madras HC remands Cancellation of GST Registration Matter to GST Appellate Authority [Read Order]

A Single Bench of Madras High Court has restored the matter of canceled Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Registration of petitioner to the appellate authority, as all returns were filed by the petitioner subsequent to cancellation.

The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, for quashing the impugned order in Appeal dated 29.09.2023 passed by the second respondent and direct the first respondent to revoke the cancellation of the registration of the petitioner so that the petitioner can carry on their business.

The petitioner was a registered person under applicable GST laws and its registration was canceled by the first respondent under order dated 21.12.2023 with effect from 08.10.2022. After such cancellation, the petitioner filed its GST returns on various dates and the last of such returns was filed on 31.08.2023. The petitioner states that all tax dues, including interest and late fee dues were discharged.

The petitioner submitted that the time limit prescribed by Section 30(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the CGST Act), as it stood then, should be calculated from the date of filing of relevant returns in view of the stipulation in Rule 23(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (the CGST Rules), as it stood then, that an application for revocation of cancellation cannot be filed until returns are filed.

In the alternative, he submitted that the benefit of the amendment to Section 30 and Rule 23 should be extended to the petitioner. The last contention is that the benefit of the amnesty scheme should be extended by taking into account the fact that the cancellation of registration took effect from 08.10.2022.

Accepting notice for the respondent-revenue, R Hemalatha submitted that no benefit should accrue to the petitioner as a result of belated filing of returns. In this regard, she relied upon Section 39 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.

The Single Bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that, “by the impugned order, the petitioner's appeal was dismissed entirely on the ground of limitation. The appellate authority noticed that the appeal was filed on 30.08.2023, which was 132 days after the period for which delay could be condoned. The said finding is factually correct.”

However the bench also noted that, the admitted position is that the petitioner filed all its returns and that the last of such returns was filed on 31.08.2023. The petitioner has also categorically asserted that all tax dues, including interest and fees relating thereto, were duly discharged.

Thus, taking into account the overall facts and circumstances, the bench remarked that this was an appropriate case to direct the appellate authority to consider the appeal on merits.

Thus, the appellate order impugned was quashed and the matter was remanded for reconsideration.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates