Reviving GST registrations in certain circumstances serves the interest of the revenue and the GST regime, and adequate safeguards exist to prevent abuse and ensure compliance.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the second respondent in Reference No.ZA330122009946T, dated 04.01.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to revoke the cancellation of petitioner's GSTIN.33CDDPN7037C1ZV.)

1. The petitioner is a proprietor of Tvl.Lucky Mydeen Briyani served with a notice for cancellation of Registration in Reference No.ZA330122009946T, dated 04.01.2022. The petitioner engaged private accountant for the purpose of filing returns and he alone had the access to the GST portal for filing returns. During the Covid-19 Pandemic, the business shut down and further, the petitioner was suffering with ill-health. Hence, the petitioner was unable to conduct the accountant and file his returns. Thereafter, the petitioner received a show cause notice, dated 02.12.2021 by the second respondent in online for the reason that why the registration shall not be cancelled under Section 29 (2) (C) of the CGST Act, since the petitioner was failed to file the returns for continuous period of six months.

2. He further submits that only during the Month of second week of August 2022, when the private accountant accessed the GSTN, the petitioner came to know that the registration was cancelled by the second respondent vide the impugned order of cancellation of registration, dated 04.01.2022. The petitioner attempted to file a representation through online to revoke the cancellation of registration. The same was not accepted, since the request for revocation is not filed within the statutory limitation of 90 (30+60) days.

3. In such circumstances, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in his proceedings in P/35/2021-ADC (RC AND M)-CCT-CTD, dated 07.04.2021 citing the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court directed all the higher officials of the department to direct the proper officers to exclude the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for the purpose of computing the limitation. Further, in support of his contention, he submitted that on similar circumstances in several cases, this Court condoned the delay. He relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others (W.P.Nos.25048, 25877, 12738 of 2021 etc.. batch), dated 31.01.2022, wherein, this Court condoned the delay.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has failed to file the returns for continuous period of six months. The show cause notice was issued on 02.12.2021 but the petitioner failed to respond to the show cause notice. After a period of one year, the petitioner attempted to upload in GSTN portal. He further submits that the petitioner has an appeal remedy before the Appellate authority and the petitioner failed to file an appeal but directly approached this Court. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Considering the submission and perusal of the materials, it is seen that the petitioner during the Covid-19 pandemic period had not filed his returns and thereafter, he had not conducted any business so that he filed only nil returns. Further this case is quite similar to the cases of the petitioners in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others (W.P.Nos.25048, 25877, 12738 of 2021 etc.. batch), dated 31.01.2022. There some of the petitioner had filed an appeal beyond the period of limitation either for filing application for revocation of cancellation, while some of them had directly filed a writ petition against the order cancelling the registration. While some of them filed appeal beyond the statutory period of limitation, there was further delay in filing the writ petition. However, considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, it was held that no useful purpose will be served by keeping those petitioners out of the Good