Sparta Food Factory India Pvt Ltd Vs Superintendent, Central Tax
Date: February 14, 2024
Subject Matter
Application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act should take into account the date of the last return filed
Summary
The case involves the cancellation of a company's GST registration due to non-compliance with return filing requirements. The company rectified the non-compliance by filing all pending GST returns and settling tax dues. Despite this, the appellate authority dismissed the company's appeal for reinstatement of its registration solely on the grounds of delay without considering the merits of the case or the company’s compliance efforts. The Madras High Court found that the company had rectified its non-compliance and directed the appellate authority to reconsider the appeal on its merits within a time frame.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
An appellate order dated 29.09.2023 rejecting the petitioner’s appeal against the cancellation of its GST registration is under challenge. The petitioner was a registered person under applicable GST laws and its registration was cancelled by the first respondent under order dated 21.12.2023 with effect from 08.10.2022. After such cancellation, the petitioner filed its GST returns on various dates and the last of such returns was filed on 31.08.2023. The petitioner states that all tax dues, including interest and late fee dues were discharged.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the time limit prescribed by Section 30(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the CGST Act), as it stood then, should be calculated from the date of filing of relevant returns in view of the stipulation in Rule 23(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (the CGST Rules), as it stood then, that an application for revocation of cancellation cannot be filed until returns are In the alternative, he submits that the benefit of the amendment to Section 30 and Rule 23 should be extended to the petitioner. The last contention is that the benefit of the amnesty scheme should be extended by taking into account the fact that the cancellation of registration took effect from 08.10.2022.
3. Mrs. R. Hemalatha, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. She submits that no benefit should accrue to the petitioner as a result of belated filing of returns. In this regard, she relies upon Section 39 of the CGST Act.
4. By the impugned order, the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed entirely on the ground of The appellate authority noticed that the appeal was filed on 30.08.2023, which was 132 days after the period for which delay could be condoned. The said finding is factually correct. Nonetheless, the admitted position is that the petitioner filed all its returns and that the last of such returns was filed on 31.08.2023. The petitioner has also categorically asserted that all tax dues, including interest and fees relating thereto, were duly discharged. By taking into account the overall facts and circumstances, this is an appropriate case to direct the appellate authority to consider the appeal on merits.
5. For reasons set out above, the appellate order impugned herein is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. The appellate authority is directed to consider and dispose of the appeal on merits within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.
6. W. P.No.3423 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.3684 of 2024 is closed.