JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the proprietor of a business engaged in execution of works contracts. He had obtained a registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act of 2017. The said registration came to be cancelled on 02.02.2021 on account of non-filing of returns. As per Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, the time limit for applying for the revocation of registration was 30 days from 02.02.2021. The said period of 30 days could be extended by the Joint Commissioner for a further period of 30 days. However, the petitioner did not file any application for revocation of registration. The petitioner, ultimately filed an appeal under Section 107 of the aforesaid Act before the Appellate Authority, challenging the order revoking the registration, on 20.11.2021. The said appeal was rejected by Ext.P5 on 09.03.2022.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised several contentions including the contention that the Hon’ble High court of Madras in W.P.(C.). No.25048 of 2021 and connected cases, had held as follows:-

‘’224. Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners have shown utter disregard to the provisions of the Acts and have failed to take advantage of the amnesty scheme given to revive their registration, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned orders with grant consequential reliefs subject to terms.

225. The provisions of the GST enactments cannot be interpreted so as to deny the right to carry on Trade and Commerce to a citizen and subjects. The constitutional guarantee is unconditional and unequivocal and must be enforced regardless of the defect in the scheme of the GST enactments. The right to carry on trade or professoin also cannot be curtailed. Only reasonable restriction can be imposed. To deny such rights would militate against their rights under Article 14, read with Article 19 (1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

226. As original or as appellate authority exercising power under the respective enactments, quasi judicial officers were bound by the provisions of the Act and the limitation under it, they have acted in accordance with law. They cannot look beyond the limitations prescribed under provisions of the Act. Therefore, no fault can be attributed to their action.

227. This is a fit case for exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioners by quashing the impugned orders and to grant consequential relief to the petitioners. By doing so, the Court is effectuating the object under the GST enactment of levying and collecting just tax from every assessee who either supplies goods or service. Legitimate Trade and Commerce by every supplier should be allowed to be carried on subject to payment of tax and statutory compliance. Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed.

228. These petitioners deserve a chance and therefore should be allowed to revive their registration so that they can proceed to regularize the defaults. The authorities acting under the Act may impose penalty with the gravity of lapses committed by these petitioners by issuing notice. If required, the Central Government and the State Government may also suitably amend the Rules to levy penalty so that it acts as a deterrent on others from adopting casual approach.’’

It is submitted that, as far as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner will be put to great prejudice and hardship, if the cancellation of registration is not revoked as the petitioner is unable to collect amounts from various Government agencies for works completed by the petitioner. It is submitted that those Government agencies will not release payments to the petitioner, if there is mismatch in the GST registration details.

3. Learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 4 and the learned Senior Standing Counselappearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3 would point out the provisions of section 29 and 30 of the CGST Act and submit t