Exceptional personal circumstances, such as bereavement, can justify non-compliance with GST filing requirements, allowing for registration restoration and installment payment of dues.

JUDGMENT

Piyush Agrawal, J.

Heard Ms. Pragya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The instant Writ Tax is being entertained by this Court in view of the fact that G.S.T. Tribunal is not functional in the State of Uttar Pradesh pursuant to the Gazette notification of the Central Government bearing number CG-DL-E-14092023-248743 dated 14.09.2023.

3. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have assailed the order dated 18.09.2021 by which the registration of the petitioner's firm was cancelled and the same has been confirmed by order dated 4.8.2022 passed by respondent no.2 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner no.1.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the the petitioner no.2 is the sole proprietor of M/s Ennkay Timbers (petitioner no.1) and was allotted GSTIN No.09BZAPK7818J1Z0 under the Goods and Services Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'GST Act'), who was engaged in the business of timbers. Further, the petitioner no.2 could not file the GST returns for his firm for a consecutive period of six months, to which a show cause notice was issued against the petitioner firm proposing to cancel the GST registration under Section 29 (2) (c) of GST Act, to which the petitioner no.2 could not file an appropriate reply within the period specified in the show cause notice dated 04.09.2021 because the petitioner no.2 was mentally exhausted after two losses in his family. Further, not being satisfied, the registration of petitioner's firm was cancelled on 18.09.2021 against which a Writ Tax No. 757 of 2022 was filed before this Court, which was dismissed on 27.05.2023 on the ground that the petitioner no.1 has alternative remedy of appeal under CGST/UPGST, Act, 2017. Thereafter, an appeal was filed, which was also rejected by impugned order dated 4.8.2022. Hence the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner no.2 has failed to file his GST returns for a period of six consecutive months due to loss of her mother and sister because of that the petitioner no.2 got mentally and financially exhausted. She has further submitted that the petitioner's firm (petitioner no.1) had filed GSTR-01 returns from March, 2021 to June, 2021 but from July, 2021 to August, 2021 could not file the same. Similarly, the 3B returns were not filed from March, 2021 to August, 2021. She has further submitted that the petitioner no.2 does not dispute the liability of tax and is ready and willing to clear all dues along with interest but in installments, as per direction by this Hon'ble Court. She has further submitted that since the registration of the petitioner no.1 has been cancelled, the amount of tax cannot be deposited Online until and unless the registration is restored, tax along with the interest cannot be deposited.

6. In support of his claim, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgement of Kerala High Court delivered in the case of Pazahyidom Food Ventures (P) Ltd., v. Superintendent Commercial Tax, CGST [WP(C).No.14275 OF 2020(H)], decided on 24.07.2020 and upon the judgement of Guwahati High Court delivered in the case of M/s. Veteran Facility Management Services Pvt., Ltd., v. The Union of India & 5 others, [WP(C)/795/2022], decided on 15.02.2022. He prays for allowing the writ petition.

7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has opposed the order by submitting that the petitioner no.2 has admitted for not filing of GSTR-01 and 3B returns consecutive for mor