2025 (6) TMI 921 - HC - GST

Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - petitioner could not submit the returns required to be submitted under Section 39(1) of the CGST Act 2017 for a period of about 6 (six) months or more - petitioner is ready and willing to comply with all the formalities required as per proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules 2017 - HELD THAT - As per Section 29(2)(c) an officer duly empowered may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date including any retrospective date as he deems fit where any registered person has not furnished returns for a continuous period of 6 (six) months. Rule 22 of the CGST Rules 2017 has laid down the procedure for cancellation of the registration. Conclusion - Having regard to the fact that the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act 2017 for the reason that the petitioner did not submit returns for a period of 6 (six) months and more; and the provisions contained in the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules 2017 and cancellation of registration entails serious civil consequences this Court is of the considered view that in the event the petitioner approaches the officer duly empowered by furnishing all the pending returns and make full payment of the tax dues along with applicable interest and late fee the officer duly empowered has the authority and jurisdiction to drop the proceedings and pass an order in the prescribed Form. This writ petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioner shall approach the concerned authority within a period of 2 (two) months from today seeking restoration of his GST registration.

Summary

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 is valid when the petitioner failed to file returns for a continuous period of six months.

2. Whether the procedure prescribed under Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017, particularly the issuance of a show cause notice and opportunity for hearing, was properly followed before cancellation.

3. Whether the petitioner, despite the cancellation of registration, can seek restoration of GST registration by furnishing pending returns and paying dues as per the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017.

4. The extent of the authority and jurisdiction of the proper officer to drop cancellation proceedings upon compliance by the petitioner with statutory requirements.

5. The applicability of limitation periods under Sections 73(10) and 44 of the CGST Act in the context of restoration of registration and payment of arrears.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

Issue 1: Validity of GST Registration Cancellation under Section 29(2)(c) CGST Act, 2017

The legal framework mandates that a registered person who fails to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months shall have their registration liable to cancellation under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017. This provision is clear and unambiguous in its intent to ensure compliance with statutory filing requirements.

The Court noted that the petitioner admittedly did not file returns for over six months, which prima facie justified cancellation. The impugned order dated 12.06.2023 by the Superintendent, Dibrugarh-2, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration on this ground was therefore grounded in statutory authority.

However, the Court also emphasized that cancellation under this provision carries serious civil consequences, necessitating strict adherence to procedural safeguards.

Issue 2: Compliance with Procedural Requirements under Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017

Rule 22 prescribes the procedure for cancellation of registration, including issuance of a show cause notice in FORM GST REG-17, allowing the registered person seven working days to reply in FORM REG-18, and the passing of an order in FORM GST REG-19. Sub-rule (4) provides that if the reply is satisfactory or the person furnishes all pending returns and pays dues, the proceedings shall be dropped by an order in FORM GST REG-20.

The petitioner contended that although a show cause notice was issued, no date for personal hearing was notified, which arguably deprived him of the opportunity to be heard, a fundamental principle of natural justice.

The Court observed that the show cause notice did specify a 30-day period for reply but did not fix a hearing date. The absence of a hearing date was noted but not held to vitiate the cancellation order, as the notice warned of ex-parte decision if no reply was furnished. The petitioner's failure to respond within the stipulated time was a key factor.

Nonetheless, the Court underscored that the procedural provisions are designed to provide an opportunity to comply and avoid cancellation, reinforcing the importance of the proviso to sub-rule (4).

Issue 3: Authority to Drop Proceedings and Restore Registration upon Compliance

The proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 empowers the proper officer to drop cancellation proceedings if the person furnishes all pending returns and makes full payment of tax dues, including interest and late fees.

The petitioner expressed willingness to comply with these requirements, though the time limit for filing revocation had expired.

The Court held that despite the expiry of the prescribed time limit for revocation, the proper officer retains jurisdiction to consider restoration if the petitioner approaches with pending returns and dues. This interpretation aligns with the remedial intent of the CGST framework to encourage compliance rather than impose harsh penalties.

The Court directed that the petitioner be allowed two months to apply for restoration, and the authority shall consider the application expeditiously and in accordance with law.

Issue 4: Treatment of Competing Arguments Regarding Procedural Defects and Time Limits

The petitioner argued procedural irregularities and the expiry of the revocation period as grounds for setting aside the cancellation. The respondent relied on the statutory mandate for cancellation and the procedural steps taken.

The Court balanced these arguments by affirming the statutory power of cancellation while emphasizing procedural fairness and the opportunity for the petitioner to rectify defaults. The Court's approach reflects a pragmatic stance favoring restoration upon compliance rather than strict enforcement of procedural technicalities to the detriment of substantive justice.

Issue 5: Application of Limitation Periods under Sections 73(10) and 44 CGST Act

The Court clarified that the limitation periods for recovery of arrears and filing of returns shall be computed from the date of the instant judgment, except for the financial year 2024-25, which will be governed by Section 44.

This ensures that the petitioner's liability for arrears, interest, penalty, and late fees is subject to statutory timelines, providing legal certainty and preventing indefinite exposure.

Significant Holdings

"Where a person, who has been served with a show cause notice under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, is ready and willing to furnish all the pending returns and to make full payment of the tax itself along with applicable interest and late fee, the officer, duly empowered, can drop the proceedings and pass an order in the prescribed Form i.e. Form GST REG-20."

This principle establishes that cancellation is not absolute and irreversible; compliance can lead to restoration, underscoring the remedial nature of the CGST regime.

The Court's final determination was to dispose of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to approach the concerned authority within two months for restoration, upon compliance with statutory requirements, and for the authority to consider the application expeditiously.

The judgment preserves the core principles of procedural fairness, statutory compliance, and the balance between enforcement and relief in tax administration.