TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside - In the instant case, the registration of respondent No.1 is not in existence. The registration was cancelled for non-filing of its returns for a continuous period of more than two years and by granting an interim order, respondent No.1 has been permitted to continue its business as a registered dealer even though the law prescribes that a person, who does not file returns for a continuous period of 6 months, is liable to be deregistered. In the present case, the total outstanding liability as reflected from the record prima facie appears to be ₹ 16,83,45,476/- (tax amount) plus interest as applicable and penalty of ₹ 1,70,71,385/- and therefore, unless and unt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der passed under Section 62 of the CGST Act for the period w.e.f., September 2018 to August 2019 in first appeal and the same was dismissed on the ground that statutory pre-deposit was not made by respondent No.1 as provided under Section 107 of the CGST Act. 4. Thereafter, respondent No.1 preferred a writ petition i.e., W.P.No.52967/2019 challenging the assessment order passed under Section 62 of the CGST Act and the same is pending. Respondent No.1 has thereafter filed another writ petition i.e., present writ petition challenging the assessment order passed for the period w.e.f., September 2019 to October 2020. 5. Another important aspect of the case is that respondent No.1 has failed to file its returns for a continuous period of 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in GSTR-3B for the period from October 2018 to October 2020. Hence, in view of the provisions of Section 62 r/w Sections 39, 47, 50 and 122 of the CGST Act, orders ASMT-13 were issued till October 2020 and the tax liability claimed is ₹ 16,83,45,476/-, interest as applicable and penalty to the tune of ₹ 1,70,71,385/-. 9. A writ petition was preferred for quashment of the order of cancellation of registration and the various orders passed by the authorities from time to time in respect of assessment for the periods w.e.f., September 2019 to October 2020 and the following prayers were made before the learned Single Judge; a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, in the nature of Writ, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proper in the circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice. INTERIM PRAYER That for the reasons stated in the Writ Petition, it is further prayed that this Hon ble Court may be pleased to revoke the order canceling registration of the Petitioner issued by Respondent No.3 and stay the operation of the Assessment Orders issued by Respondent No.4, pending disposal of this Writ Petition and thus render justice. 10. The learned Single Judge has granted an interim order on 17.2.2021 staying the operation of cancellation of registration dated 19.10.2020, permitting respondent No.1 to file manual returns for the backlog period and reserving liberty to the revenue to consider the request of respondent No.1 for permission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of hearing' in the impugned order is contrary to the actual facts. Hence, it is submitted that the order passed being in violation of principles of natural justice, which has resulted in business coming to a stand still and ought to be stayed. 6. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that the petitioner has made its position clear that they are willing to pay the arrears of tax in terms of installments that would be afforded to them in terms of Section 80 of CGST Act and if that were to be so, no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue. 7. It is further submitted that, as the petitioner is not able to carry on its business, the adverse impact of cancellation of registration is to be taken note of. 8. The contentions are als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r filing of manual returns. There is no facility under the law to accept manual returns and by allowing respondent No.1 to file returns manually will certainly unsettle the entire scheme of GST and therefore, on this ground alone, the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 13. In the instant case, the registration of respondent No.1 is not in existence. The registration was cancelled for non-filing of its returns for a continuous period of more than two years and by granting an interim order, respondent No.1 has been permitted to continue its business as a registered dealer even though the law prescribes that a person, who does not file returns for a continuous period of 6 months, is liable to be dereg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
