TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otices in the respective regional languages and also by SMS and registered post. So that, the uneducated traders can also respond to these notices to some extent. Otherwise, these notices will be an empty formality and will not serve any purpose for which it has been issued. The object of any Government is to promote the trade and not to curtail the same. The cancellation of registration certainly amounts to a capital punishment to the traders, like the petitioner. In similar circumstances, this Court, in Suguna Cutpiece Vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others [ 2022 (2) TMI 933 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] , allowed the writ petitions by holding that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners out of the Goods and Service Tax regime. By applying the above ratio, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to pay the due amount and penalty, if any and thereafter, restore the petitioner's GST registration . No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. - Honourable Mr. Justice B. Pugalendhi For the Petitioner : Mr. J. Jeyakumaran For the Respondents : Mr. A. Baskaran, Additional Gov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the first respondent after the period of limitation was over. Therefore, the first respondent, by order dated 21.09.2023, has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 5. This Court considered the rival submissions made and perused the materials placed on record. 6. The petitioner is a whole seller and distributor of Airtel EC and enrolled under GST Act 2017. The petitioner has been provided with GSTN Registration No.33CXQPS7950A2Z5. The petitioner claims that due to ill-health, he could not file the returns for a period of six months. Therefore, the second respondent, by order dated 03.02.2023, cancelled the petitioner's GST Registration. As against the same, the petitioner has filed appeal before the first respondent with delay and the same was dismissed on the ground of limitation by order dated 21.09.2023. 7. This Court in Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST)(GST) and others reported in 2022 (2) TMI 933 has held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners out of the Goods and Service Tax regime, as such, assessee would still continue his businesses and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536, in Paragraph No.77, the Hon ble Supreme Court observed that So far as the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or for that matter, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 is concerned, it is obvious that the provisions of the Act cannot bar and curtail these remedies. It is, however, equally obvious that while exercising the power under Article 226 / Article 32 , the Court would certainly take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment. Even while acting in exercise of the said constitutional power, the High Court cannot ignore the law nor can it override it. 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 cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not been already paid. ii. It is made clear that such payment of Tax, Interest, fine / fee and etc. shall not be allowed to be made or adjusted from and out of any Input Tax Credit which may be lying unutilized or unclaimed in the hands of these petitioners. iii. If any Input Tax Credit has remained utilized, it shall not be utilised until it is scrutinized and approved by an appropriate or a competent officer of the Department. iv. Only such approved Input Tax Credit shall be allowed for being utilized thereafter for discharging future tax liability under the Act and Rule. v. The petitioners shall also pay GST and file the returns for the period subsequent to the cancellation of the registration by declaring the correct value of supplies and payment of GST shall also be in cash. vi. If any Input Tax Credit was earned, it shall be allowed to be utilised only after scrutinising and approving by the respondents or any other competent authority. vii. The respondents may also impose such restrictions / limitation on petitioners as may be warranted to ensure that there is no undue passing of Input Tax Credit pending such exercise and to ensure that there is no violation or an attempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
