TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Commissioner, going by the provisions contained in Section 30 of the CGST Act. If one were to apply the directions issued by the Hon ble Supreme Court in IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION [ 2021 (3) TMI 497 - SC ORDER ] to the periods of limitation prescribed by Section 30 of the CGST Act, it can be held, without any difficulty, that the petitioner had time till 28.05.2022 to file an application for revocation. The petitioner filed an appeal and possibly, by bona fide mistake, did so on 20.11.2021. This can only be seen as a availing of a wrong remedy by the petitioner. If that date was taken as the application for revocation, the period of the application for revocation can be treated as one filed within time. This writ p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 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 Counsel appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.3442 of 2022 [Tahura Enterprise V. Union of India] and the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in W.P. No.8162 of 2021 [MAA Sharda Construction Company V. Union of India and Others]. It is submitted that the view taken by the Madras High court should be the view to be adopted by this Court since no tax law should be construed as creating difficulties in the doing of business and the State should essentially be concerned about collecting taxes and penalties wherever applicable rather than relying on technicalities to deny the restoration of registration in cases like this. It is submitted that that even if this Court is to grant relief to the petitioner, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Customs could be said to have been extended. 10. Indisputably, the application requesting for restoration of registration was filed in July 2021 i.e. during the period when the order of the Supreme Court extending the limitation was in operation. More importantly, the writ-applicants have paid the requisite amount towards tax on the basis of self assessed liability on 06.09.2021. Since the registration of certificate of the writ-applicants came to be cancelled solely on the ground of non-filing of the returns, which was on account of nonpayment of tax and the writ-applicants now having paid such outstanding tax, the registration certificate of the writ-applicants should be ordered to be restored so that they are able to continue with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No.3 of 2020, to the periods of limitation prescribed by Section 30 of the CGST Act, it can be held, without any difficulty, that the petitioner had time till 28.05.2022 to file an application for revocation. The petitioner filed an appeal and possibly, by bona fide mistake, did so on 20.11.2021. This can only be seen as a availing of a wrong remedy by the petitioner. If that date was taken as the application for revocation, the period of the application for revocation can be treated as one filed within time. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and it is directed that if the petitioner files a fresh application for revocation within seven days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
