Bobismrita Chetia Gogoi vs Union Of India And 2 Ors

core.xml

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J

Heard Shri RS Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri SC Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, CGST for the respondents.

It is the case of the petitioner that she has been carrying out her business under the name & style, “M/S Poly Enterprise”. She is the sole proprietor and is an assessee registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017/Assam Goods and Services Tax (AGST) Act, 2017 bearing registration No. 18A1EPC1892N3ZW. Because of non-filing of GST returns for a continuous period of six months, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice bearing reference No. ZA1810240050266 dated 07.10.2024 asking her to furnish reply to the aforesaid notice within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of service of notice and it was mentioned in the aforesaid show cause notice that if the petitioner fails to furnish a reply within the stipulated date or fails to appear for personal hearing on the appointed date and time, the case will be decided ex parte on the basis of the available records and on merits. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 11.11.2024 was passed by the Superintendent, Dibrugarh-1 Range, Assam, whereby the petitioner’s GST registration has been cancelled.

It is contended that due to miscommunication with the tax consultant, the petitioner was not aware of the show cause notice. Therefore, she could not submit any reply to the said show cause notice. It is further contended that when the petitioner came across the said notice, the time for filing reply was already over and order had also been uploaded in the portal.

The petitioner further contends that she has updated all her pending returns up to the month of November, 2024 as allowed by the GST portal and while updating her returns, the petitioner has also discharged all her GST dues along with her late fees and interest.

Thereafter, the petitioner tried to file the necessary application seeking revocation of GST cancellation, however, the same could not be filed as the time limit prescribed for filing of revocation application was elapsed and a message was displayed in the screen “timeline of 270 days from the date of cancellation order provided to taxpayer to file application for revocation of cancellation is expired.”

Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to comply with all the formalities required as per proviso to subrule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017.

As per Section 29(2)(c) of the Act, 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.

Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 being the bone of contention, is extracted herein below:-

“Rule22:Cancellation of Registration

(1)Where the proper officer has reasons to believe that the registration of a person is liable to be cancelled under Section 29,he shall issue a notice to such person in FORMGSTREG-17,requiring him to show cause,within a period of seven working days from the date of the service of such notice,as to why his registration shall not be cancelled.

(2)The reply to the show causenotice issued undersub-rule[1]shall be furnishedinFORMREG-18withintheperiodspecifiedinthesaidsub-rule.

(3)Where a person who has submitted an application for cancellation of his registration is no longer liable to be registered or his registration is liable to be cancelled, the proper officer shall issue an order in FORMGST REG-19, within a period of thirty days from the date of application submitted under Rule 20 or, as the case maybe,the date of the reply to the showcause issued under sub-rule (1), (or under sub-rule (2A) of Rule 21A) cancel the registration, with effect from a date to be determined by him and notify the taxable person, directing him to pay arrears of any tax, interestor penalty including the amount liable to be paid under sub-section(5)

ofSection29.

4) Where the reply furnished under sub-rule (2) (or in response to the notice issued under sub-rule(2A)ofRule21A) is found to be satisfactory, the proper officer shall drop the proceedings and pass an order in FORM GSTREG-20:Providedthatwherethepersoninsteadofreplyingtothe notice served under sub rule (1) for contravention of the provisions contained in Clause (b) or Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 29, furnishes all the pending returns and makes full payment of the tax dues along with applicable interest and late fee, the proper officer shall drop the proceedings and pass an order in FORMGSTREG-20.

(5) The provisions of sub-rule (3) shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the legal heirs of a deceased proprietor, as if the application had been submitted by the proprietor himself.”

It is discernible from a reading of the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the Rules of 2017 that if a person, who has been served with a show cause notice under Section 29(2)(c) of the Act, 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.

The learned counsel for the parties have also referred to an Order dated 11.10.2023 passed in a writ petition being WP(C) No.6366/2023 (Sanjoy Nath vs The Union of India & Ors.) wherein the petitioner therein was similarly situated like the present petitioner.

Having regard to the fact that the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled under Section 29(2)(c) of the Act, 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, may consider to drop the proceedings and pass an appropriate order in the prescribed Form.

In such view of the matter, 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 her GST registration. If the petitioner submits such an application and complies with all the requirements as provided in the proviso to Rule 22 (4) of the Rules, the concerned authority shall consider the application of the petitioner for restoration of her GST registration in accordance with law and shall take necessary steps for restoration of GST registration of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.

It is needless to say that the period as stipulated under Section 73 (10) of the Central GST Act/State GST Act shall be computed from the date of the instant order, except for the financial year 2024-25, which shall be as per Section 44 of the Central GST Act/State GST Act. The petitioner herein would also be liable to make payment of arrears i.e. tax, penalty, interest and late fees.

Shri Keyal, the learned counsel has however submitted that there is delay in approaching this Court and though orders may be passed following the earlier orders, the same may not be treated as a precedent.

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. No cost.