2025 (6) TMI 831 - HC - GST

Cancellation of GST registration on the premise that the statutory returns has not been filed for a continuous period of more than six months - HELD THAT - This Court has been consistently following the directions issued in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Center s case 2022 (2) TMI 933 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where it was held that the petitioners should be given an opportunity to revive their GST registrations to ensure compliance with the GST regime and avoid revenue loss to the government. In view thereof the benefit extended by this Court in Suguna Cutpiece Centre s case may be extended to the petitioner. The petition is disposed off.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:

- Whether the cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2) of the CGST Act, on the ground of non-filing of statutory returns for a continuous period exceeding six months, is sustainable in the facts of the case.

- Whether the petitioner is entitled to revival of GST registration upon compliance with conditions including filing of pending returns, payment of tax dues, interest, penalty, and restrictions on utilization of Input Tax Credit (ITC).

- The extent and manner in which the Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction to set aside the cancellation order and direct restoration of registration.

- The applicability and binding effect of precedents, particularly the decision in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center Vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), on the present facts.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of Cancellation of GST Registration under Section 29(2) of CGST Act

The legal framework governing cancellation of registration under the CGST Act is encapsulated in Section 29(2), which mandates cancellation if statutory returns are not filed for a continuous period exceeding six months. The Respondents relied on this provision as the basis for cancellation dated 11.01.2024.

The Court acknowledged the statutory mandate but also noted that the issue has been extensively examined in prior judgments, especially the ruling in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center's case, where under identical circumstances, the Court directed revocation subject to conditions.

The Court interpreted Section 29(2) not as an absolute bar to revival but as a procedural safeguard to ensure compliance. It recognized that non-filing of returns for six months triggers cancellation but does not preclude restoration upon rectification.

Key evidence included the cancellation order itself and the acknowledgment of appeal submission in FORM GST APL-02 by the 2nd Respondent, indicating procedural compliance by the petitioner in seeking redressal.

Competing arguments were addressed by balancing the statutory intent to enforce compliance against the hardship caused by automatic cancellation without opportunity for rectification. The Court favored a pragmatic approach consistent with prior rulings.

The conclusion was that while the cancellation order was validly passed under Section 29(2), the petitioner is entitled to restoration subject to fulfillment of prescribed conditions.

Issue 2: Conditions for Revival of GST Registration and Utilization of Input Tax Credit

The precedent in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center's case laid down a detailed framework for revival of registration, which the Court adopted and reiterated. The conditions include:

• Filing of all pending returns prior to cancellation, payment of outstanding tax along with interest, and fines for belated filing within 45 days.
• Prohibition on utilizing Input Tax Credit (ITC) for payment of these dues until scrutinized and approved by competent authorities.
• Only approved ITC can be utilized for future tax liabilities.
• Payment of GST and filing of returns for the period after cancellation must be made in cash with correct declaration of supplies.
• Respondents may impose restrictions to prevent undue passing of ITC or bill trading.
• On compliance, registration shall be revived forthwith.
• Respondents are directed to coordinate with GST Network to enable filing and payment on the GST portal within 30 days.

The Court emphasized that these conditions are necessary to maintain the integrity of the GST system and prevent misuse of tax credits.

The Court applied these principles to the facts of the case, extending the same benefit to the petitioner as was granted in the precedent. It rejected any argument for unconditional restoration, underscoring the need for strict adherence to these safeguards.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held:

"In the light of the above discussion, these Writ Petitions are allowed subject to the following conditions: ... On payment of tax, penalty and uploading of returns, the registration shall stand revived forthwith."

This crystallizes the principle that cancellation under Section 29(2) is not irreversible and that restoration is permissible upon compliance with statutory requirements and safeguards.

The Court preserved the core principles established in the precedent, including:

• Mandatory filing of pending returns and payment of dues before revival.
• Restriction on utilization of Input Tax Credit until scrutiny and approval.
• Requirement of cash payment for GST after cancellation period.
• Authority of the department to impose restrictions to prevent abuse.
• Obligation of the GST Network to facilitate compliance through the portal.

Final determinations included quashing the cancellation order and directing restoration of registration on the stated terms, with no costs awarded.