Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center vs ________________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

07.12.2021, 09.12.2021, 13.12.2021, Reserved On 15.12.2021, 10.01.2022 & 19.01.2022 Pronounced On 31.01.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

W.P.Nos.25048, 25877, 12738, 17237, 20722, 20945, 21237, 21315, 23374, 24967, 25118, 25146, 25147, 25156 25678, 12683, 12685, 25026, 26026, 25705, 26187, 26190 & 14508 of 2021 and W.P.No.14241 of 2021 and W.P.Nos.507, 126 & 128 of 2022 and W.M.P.Nos.26384, 26385, 27347, 27349, 27350, 13533, 18248, 18249, 21976, 26283, 26284, 27119, 27121 13471, 13472, 13473, 13475, 13476, 26355 , 27474, 27476 , 27394, 27395, 15403, 27636, 27638, 27638, 27642 & 27644 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.17715 of 2020 and W.M.P.Nos.132, 134 & 142 of 2022

(Through Video Conferencing)

W.P.No.25048 of 2021

Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center, 4-111-B Kolathur, Kolathur, (Post), Salem – 636 403, Rep by its Authorized Signature, K.Jayaraman ... Petitioner

Vs.

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 1 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

1.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), Salem and Erode, Commercial Taxes Building, Pitchards Road, Salem – 7.

2.The Assistant Commissioner (Circle), Salem Bazaar. ... Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent in Appeal No.238/2021 dated 23.09.2021 and quash the same.

For Petitioner in : Mr.B.Ramesh Kumar W.P.Nos.25048, 25877, 17237, 24967 & 26026 of 2021

For Petitioner in : Mr.Adithya Reddy W.P.No.12738 of 2021 and W.P.No.14241 of 2020

For Petitioner in : Dr.A.Thiyagarajan, W.P.No.20722 of 2021 Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Karunakaran

For Petitioner in : Mr.K.M.Malarmannan W.P.Nos.20945, 21237 & 23374 of 2021

For Petitioner in : Mr.S.Patrick

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 2 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

W.P.No.21315 of 2021

For Petitioner in : Mr.M.Elango W.P.No.25118 of 2021

For Petitioner in : Mr.Ashish W.P.Nos.25146, 25147 & 25156 of 2021

For Petitioner in : Mr.R.Senniappan W.P.Nos.25678, 25705, 26187 & 26190 of 2021 and W.P.Nos.126 & 128 of 2022

For Petitioner in : Mr.P.Rajkumar W.P.Nos.12683 & 12685 of 2021

For Petitioner in : Mr.C.Subramanian W.P.No.25056 of 2021

For Petitioner in : Mr.V.Kumaresan W.P.No.507 of 2022 for Mr.K.Murukesan

For Petitioner in : Mr.P.V.Sudakar W.P.No.14508 of 2021

.................. For respondents in : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan W.P.Nos.25048, Special Government 12738, 17237, 20722, Pleader

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 3 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

20945, 21237, 21315, 23374, 24967, 25118, 25146, 25147, 25156, 25678, 12683, 12685, 25026, 26026, 25705, of 2021 and in W.P.No.507 of 2022

For respondents in : Mr.A.P.Srinivas, W.P.No.25877 of 2021 Senior Standing Counsel

For respondent in : Ms.Amirta Poonkodi W.P.No.14508 of 2021 Dinakaran Government Advocate

For respondents in : Mr.Richardson Wilson W.P.No.14241 of Government Advocate 2020 and W.P.Nos.26187 & 26190 of 2021 and W.P.Nos.126 & 128 of 2022

COMMON ORDER

By this common order, all the Writ Petitions are being

disposed. Since a common order is being passed in all these Writ

Petitions, I have summarized the submissions of the learned counsel for

the respective petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents in

the succeeding paragraphs upto paragraph No.149. Discussion for

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 4 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

arriving at the conclusion starts from paragraph No.150 onwards.

2. These Writ Petitions pertain to the challenge to the cancellation

of GST Registrations issued to the petitioners under the provisions of the

Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods and

Services Tax Act, 2017. Some of the petitioners have filed these Writ

Petitions against the order of the cancellation of GST registration, while,

some of the petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions against the order

passed in the appeals filed against the order of the cancellation of GST

registration. Details and prayer of the Writ Petitions are given as follows:-

Sl. W.P.No. Prayer No.

Against the order of the cancellation of Registration

1 12738/2021 For issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus:-

i. to call for the records of the order of the respondent dated 30.09.2019 in Reference No.ZA3309191059645, ii. to quash the same, and iii. to direct the respondent to receive the petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation of its registration under Section 30(1) of the State Goods and Services Act, 2017.

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 5 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

Sl. W.P.No. Prayer No.

2. 21315/2021 For issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to revoke the cancellation of the petitioner's GST Registration in GSTIN/UIN:33ABKFS8764L1ZF by considering the petitioner's representation dated

02.09.2021.

3. 25678/2021 For issuance of a Writ of Certiorari:-

i. to call for the records on the files of the respondent in Reference Number ZA330219009465O dated 04.02.2019, and ii. to quash the same.

4 25026/2021 For issuance of a Writ of Certiorari:-

i. to call for the records of respondent in his proceedings in Reference No.ZA331019014593A dated 04.10.2019, and ii. to quash the same.

5 20722/2021 For issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus:-

i. to call for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in Application Reference Number (ARN):

AA331018053413N (Ref.

No.ZA331118050192Z) dated 16.11.2018, ii. to quash the same, and iii. to restore the registration of the petitioner in GSTIN/Unique ID:33AAFPE7865CIZY.

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 6 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

Sl. W.P.No. Prayer No.

6 12683/2021 For issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus:-

i. to call for the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Reference No.ZA331119015921T, ii. to quash the impugned order dated 05.11.2019, and iii. to direct the first respondent to restore the GST Registration Certificate of the petitioner in GSTIN/UIN:33AABFL7771Q1ZQ.

7 25705/2021 For issuance of a Writ of Certiorari:-

i. to call for the records on the files of the respondent in Reference No.ZA331019054883G dated 16.10.2019, and ii. to quash the same.

8 26190/2021 For issuance of Writ of Certiorari:-

i. to call for the records on the files of the first respondent in Reference No.ZA331019082695B dated 22.10.2019, and ii. to quash the same as being without jurisdiction and authority of law and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

9 126/2022 For issuance of a Writ of Certiorari:-

i. to call for th records on the files of the first respondent in Reference No.ZA330619013613P dated 07.06.2019, and

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 7 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

Sl. W.P.No. Prayer No. ii. to quash the same as being without jurisdiction and authority of law and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

10 14508/2021 For issuance of a Writ of Certiorari:-

i. to call for the records of the respondent in his proceedings in Reference No.ZA331019114070A, and ii. to quash the order dated 31.10.2019 passed therein.

Against the order passed in appeal filed against the order of cancellation of Registration of GST Certificate on account of the appeal being time barred

11 25048/2021 For issuance of a Writ of Certiorari:-

i. to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent in Appeal No.238/2021 dated 23.09.2021, and ii. to quash the same.

12 25877/2021 For issuance of a Writ of Certiorari:-

i. to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent in Order-in-Appeal No.143/2021 dated 27.09.2021, and ii. to quash the same.

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 8 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

Sl. W.P.No. Prayer No.

13 17237/2021 For issuance of a Writ of Certiorari:-

i. to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent in Appeal No.104/2021 dated 29.07.2021, and ii. to quash the same.

14 23374/2021 For issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus:-

i. to call for the records on the file of the first respondent with regard to the impugned order in R.C.No.1243/2021/A1 dated 16.08.2021, ii. to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary, and iii. to restore the petitioner's Registration GSTIN / 33DHKP-S2662N2ZPm so as to enable the petitioner for filing return.

15 24967/2021 For issuance of a Writ of Certiorari:-

i. to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent in Appeal No.212/2021 dated 02.09.2021, and ii. to quash the same.

16 25118/2021 For issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus:-

i. to call for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in Appeal No.263/2021 dated 03.11.2021, ii. to quash the same, and iii. to direct the first respondent to entertain the appeal dated 14.10.2021 filed by the petitioner and dispose the same on merits.

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 9 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

Sl. W.P.No. Prayer No.

17 12685/2021 For issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus:-

i. to call for the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in Appeal No.GST/141/2020, ii. to quash the impugned order dated 23.04.2021, and iii. to direct the first respondent to restore the GST Registration Certificate of the petitioner in GSTIN/UIN:33AABFL7771Q1ZQ.

18 26026/2021 For issuance of a Writ of Certiorari:-

i. to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent Order-In-Appeal No.409/2021 dated 22.09.2021, and ii. to quash the same.

19 507/2022 For issuance of a Writ of Certiorari:-

i. to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Appeal No.426 of 2021 dated 01.11.2021, and ii. to quash the same.

20 128/2022 For issuance of a Writ of Certiorari:-

i. to call for the records on the files of the second respondent in Appeal No.157 of 2021 dated 17.08.2021, and

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 10 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

Sl. W.P.No. Prayer No. ii. to quash the same as being without jurisdiction and authority of law and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

Against the rejection of the application filed for appeal against the order of cancellation of GST Registration

21 21237/2021 For issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus:-

i. to call for the records on the file of the first respondent with regard to the impugned order passed in R.C.No.349/2021/A1 dated 29.03.2021, ii. to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary, and iii. to consequently direct the respondents to restore the petitioner's Registration No.GSTIN / 33FHS / PS6754P2Z2.

22 26187/2021 For issuance of a Writ of Certiorari:-

i. to call for the records on the files of the second respondent in TNGST M.P.No.181/2021 dated 27.07.2021, and ii. to quash the same as being without jurisdiction and authority of law and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

23 20945/2021 For issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus:-

i. to call for the records on the file of the first respondent with regard to the impugned order passed in R.C.No.875/2021/A1 dated 06.09.2021, ii. to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary, and iii. to direct the respondents to restore the

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 11 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

Sl. W.P.No. Prayer No. petitioner's Registration No.GSTIN/33AAAC-

Q3485A1ZU so as to enable the petitioner for filing returns.

24 25146/2021 For issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus:-

25147/2021 i. to quash the impugned orders in 25156/2021 Rc.No.1290/2021/A1, Rc.No.1289/2021/A1 & Rc.No.1288/2021/A1 all dated 27.08.2021 respectively passed by the respondent, and ii. to direct the respondent to admit the appeals of the petitioners.

Against the rejection order of application for revocation of cancellation

25 14241/2020 For issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus:-

i. to call for the records of the impugned proceedings of the respondent dated 07.09.2020 in Ref. No.ZA330920020379P, ii. to quash the same, and iii. to consequently direct the respondent to restore the petitioner's GST Registration.

3. Before passing the order of cancellation of GST Registration, the

respondents have issued Show Cause Notices which have culminated in

the impugned orders. Details of the Show Cause Notice, Order-in-Original

and Appeal are given as follows:-

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 12 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

Sl. W.P.No. Date of SCN Order of Rejection of Order in No. Cancellation of appeal being time Appeal GST barred Registration 1 25048/2021 24.07.2019 19.08.2019 - 23.09.2021 2 25678/2021 12.12.2018 04.02.2019 - - 3 21315/2021 17.12.2018 01.02.2019 - - 4 12738/2021 10.09.2019 30.09.2019 - - 5 17237/2021 25.09.2019 17.10.2019 - 29.07.2021 6 25877/2021 24.08.2019 05.11.2019 - 27.09.2021 7 25026/2021 01.08.2019 04.10.2019 - - 8 23374/2021 07.01.2019 22.01.2019 16.08.2021 - 9 20945/2021 14.08.2018 29.08.2018 06.09.2021 - 10 20722/2021 26.10.2018 16.11.2018 30.04.2021 - 11 25146/2021 13.05.2019 27.05.2019 27.08.2021 - 12 25147/2021 16.10.2019 30.10.2019 27.08.2021 - 13 25156/2021 16.10.2019 30.10.2019 27.08.2021 - 14 25118/2021 10.10.2019 30.10.2021 - 03.11.2021 15 24967/2021 19.12.2018 07.02.2019 - 02.09.2021 16 21237/2021 19.09.2018 08.10.2018 29.03.2021 - 17 12683/2021 - -

18 12685/2021 21.10.2019 05.11.2019 23.04.2021 19 25705/2021 01.10.2019 16.10.2019 - 20 26190/2021 - -

21 26187/2021 12.09.2019 22.10.2019 27.07.2021 - 22 26026/2021 19.12.2018 07.02.2019 - 22.09.2021 23 507/2022 11.12.2018 11.12.2018 - 01.11.2021 24 14241/2020 18.10.2019 13.11.2019 07.09.2020 -

25 126/2022 26 128/2022 04.04.2019 07.06.2019 - 17.08.2021 27 14508/2021 21.10.2019 31.10.2019 28.06.2021 -

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 13 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

4. In W.P.No.25048 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the

impugned order dated 23.09.2021 passed by the first respondent viz.,

Appellate Deputy Commissioner, under Section 107(1) of the TNGST

Act, 2017 in Appeal No.238 of 2021 filed by the petitioner against the

order of cancellation of GST registration dated 19.08.2019 passed by the

second respondent viz., Assistant Commissioner, canceling the

registration of the petitioner under Section 29 of the TNGST Act, 2017.

5. Mr.B.RamesshKumaar, the learned counsel of the petitioner in

W.P.No.25048 of 2021 submits that the petitioner was issued with Show

Cause Notice dated 24.07.2019, wherein the petitioner was called upon to

show cause as to why the registration granted to the petitioner should not

be cancelled on the ground that the petitioner has not filed the returns for

a continuous period of six months. The petitioner was directed to appear

for personal hearing on 31.07.2019.

6. He further submitted that thereafter, by an order dated

19.08.2019, the second respondent cancelled the GST registration of the

petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner preferred an appeal

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 14 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner on 02.08.2021 which was

admittedly beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 107

of the TNGST Act, 2017. The first respondent dismissed the appeal on

the ground of limitation.

7. Opposing the prayer in W.P.No.25048 of 2021, Mr.N.R.R.Arun

Natarajan, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of

the respondents submits that the petitioner has not opted any of the

concession granted by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

vide Notification No.1 of 2020, dated 25.06.2020 or further extension

granted on 29.08.2021 vide Notification No.34 of 2021 – Central Tax,

issued by the Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes

and Customs.

8. The learned Special Government Pleader would further submit

that though the petitioner has belatedly filed the returns and paid the tax,

the appeal was beyond the limitation. It is submitted that though the

petitioner has paid the tax and filed the returns belatedly, nevertheless the

petitioner having not opted for filing suitable application for revocation of

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 15 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

cancellation of registration, the relief sought for in this Writ Petition

cannot be granted. It is further submitted that the order passed by this

Court dated 22.09.2021 in W.P.Nos.20083 & 20086 of 2021 will not

apply to the facts of the present case.

9. In W.P.No.25877 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the

order dated 27.09.2021 passed by the Appellate Commissioner in Appeal

No.143 of 2021 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27.09.2021

cancelling the CGST registration of the petitioner.

10. Mr.B.Ramesh Kumaar, the learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.No.25877 of 2021 submits that the petitioner was issued with a

Show Cause Notice dated 24.08.2019 under Section 29 of CGST Act,

2017 on the ground that the petitioner has not filed his returns for a

continuous period of 6 months and that the petitioner was directed to

appear before the second respondent for a personal hearing on

05.09.2019.

11. He further submitted that the second respondent has cancelled

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 16 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

the registration vide order dated 05.11.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner

preferred an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner viz., the first

respondent on 31.08.2021.

12. It is submitted that the first respondent/Appellate

Commissioner had erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner

only on the ground of limitation, even though the first respondent has

accepted that the petitioner has filed the GSTR3B/GSTR1 Returns for the

period upto the date of cancellation of Registration and paid appropriate

tax with late fee.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that

there are intervening Government Orders vide Notification No.1 of 2020,

dated 25.06.2020 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and

Customs and Notification No.34 of 2021 – Central Tax, issued by the

Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs,

dated 29.08.2021.

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 17 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

14. That apart, it is submitted that the respondents have also

clarified the position in terms of Circular No.158/14/2021 – GST issued

by the Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and

Customs, dated 06.09.2021 and therefore, there is no merits in the

impugned order.

15. Opposing the prayer in W.P.No.25877 of 2021,

Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondents would submit that the petitioner has filed the appeal

belatedly and therefore, the appeal has been correctly rejected by the first

respondent.

16. That apart, it is submitted that the petitioner has also not opted

for revocation of cancellation of registration in terms of the amnesty

scheme and relaxation given by the Government. It is therefore submitted

that the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 18 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

17. The learned Senior Standing Counsel would also submit that

the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.20083 & 20086 of

2021 dated 22.09.2021 is not relevant to the facts of the present case.

Further, he would submit that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court

had also dismissed the plea of few dealers who had approached the

authorities belatedly. In this connection, a reference was made to the

order passed by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in the case of

P.R.Mani Electronics Vs. Union of India and others, 2020 SCC

OnLine Mad 8053.

18. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents would

submit that a review petition is also pending before the Hon'ble First

Bench against the aforesaid order, nevertheless as the law stands today,

as held by the Hon'ble First Bench, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner

has to be dismissed.

19. In W.P.No.12738 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the

impugned order dated 30.09.2019 passed by the respondent revoking the

GST registration of the petitioner under Section 29 of the CGST Act,

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 19 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

2017 and TNGST Act, 2017. The impugned order dated 10.09.2019

preceded the Show Cause Notice dated 10.09.2019, to which, the

petitioner has also replied on 20.09.2019.

20. It is the specific case of the petitioner in W.P.No.12738 of 2021

that the petitioner was a dealer registered under the provisions of the

erstwhile Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act,2006 and that the petitioner

was liable to pay tax as works contractor.

21. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner's

employer had failed to make payment to the petitioner and therefore,

during the month of January 2019, the petitioner did not file request

returns under the provisions of the TNGST Act and CGST Act, 2017.

22. Mr.Adithya Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.No.12738 of 2021 submits that after the impugned order was passed

by the respondent on 30.09.2019, the petitioner has attempted to pay the

disputed tax and late fee charges, in all amounting to Rs.49,58,029/-. It is

further submitted that at the time when the petitioner made the payments,

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 20 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

there was no proposal for extending the period prescribed under Section

29 r/w 34 of Revocation of the cancellation of license either by the Central

Government or by the State Government.

23. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.12738 of

2021 further submits that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and

Customs issued a Notification No.1 of 2020, dated 25.06.2020 in terms of

which all the assessees who were in default of filing returns and whose

registrations have been cancelled upto 12th June 2020 were made eligible

to file such application for revocation by 31st August 2020.

24. It is the specific case of the petitioner in W.P.No.12738 of

2021that a part of the aforesaid amount of Rs.49,58,029/- was paid prior

to the issuance of the aforesaid notification dated 25.06.2020 and partly

after another extension was granted vide Notification No.34 of 2021 –

Central Tax, issued by the Department of Revenue, Central Board of

Indirect Taxes and Customs, dated 29.08.2021.

25. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.12738 of

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 21 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

2021 further submits that under the above notifications, a fresh period of

limitation was given to the persons whose registration has been cancelled

under clause (b) or (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Act and the

time limit for making an application for revocation of cancellation of

registration under sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act fell during the

period starting from 1st day of March 2020 to 31st day of August 2021 and

the time limit for making such application stood extended upto 30 th

September 2021.

26. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that by

virtue of these notifications, though some of the dealers were able to get

their registration restored, the petitioner was unable to restore the

registration.

27. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 08.03.2021 passed in the

wake of outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic and submits that the Hon'ble

Supreme Court vide the said order had clarified as follows:

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 22 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

“We also take judicial notice of the fact that the steep rise in COVID-19 Virus cases is not limited to Delhi alone but it has engulfed the entire nation. The extraordinary situation caused by the sudden and second outburst of COVID-19 Virus, thus, requires extraordinary measure to minimize the hardship of litigant- public in all the states. We, therefore, restore the order dated 23rd March, 2020 and in continuation of the order dated 8th March, 2021 direct that the period(s) of limitation, as prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, whether condonable or not, shall stand extended till further orders.”

28. Mr.Adithya Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.No.12738 of 2021 further submits that to give effect to the above

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was again extended vide

another order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 23.09.2021, the Central

Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has issued Circular

No.157/13/2021-GST, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs,

GST Policy Wing, dated 20.07.2021 and in paragraph 4.(b), it has been

stated as follows:

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 23 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

“4. On the basis of the legal opinion, it is hereby clarified that various actions/compliances under GST can be broadly categorised as follows:-

(a). ......

(b). Quasi-Judicial proceedings by tax authorities:-

The tax authorities can continue to hear and dispose off proceedings where they are performing the functions as quasi-judicial authority. This may interalia include disposal of application for refund, application for revocation of cancellation of registration, adjudication proceedings of demand notices, etc.,

Similarly, appeals which are filed and are pending, can continue to be heard and disposed off and the same will be governed by those extensions of time granted by the statutes or notifications, if any.”

29. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.12738 of

2021 further submits that in a somewhat identical situation where one of

the assessees had preferred a Writ Petition and challenged the order of the

Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017 and

this Court intervened by its order dated 22.09.2021 in W.P.Nos.20083 &

20086 of 2021 and disposed the Writ Petitions with the following

observations:-

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 24 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

“11.In the light of the narrative thus far, the following order is passed:

(a) The second impugned order i.e., order made by the second respondent in Appeal No.102 of 2021 being order dated 22.07.2021 is set aside solely to facilitate the writ petitioner to apply for revocation under Section 30 of TN Goods and ST Act;

(b) As the order of the Appellate Authority i.e., second respondent is set aside solely to facilitate the writ petitioner to get the advantage of extended time frame seeking revocation, it is made clear (though obvious) that no view or opinion on merits of the matter has been expressed qua second impugned order;

(c) It is open to the writ petitioner to apply for revocation under Section 30 of TN Goods and ST Act on or before 30.09.2021 and if the writ petitioner chooses to do so, a proper officer shall consider the revocation application on its own merits and in accordance with law and make an order as expeditiously as possible;

(d) For the purpose of abundant clarity, it is made clear that there is no expression of opinion regarding second registration obtained by the writ petitioner and that is also left open to the proper officer to decide in the course of taking a call on the application for revocation when made;”

30. Opposing the prayer in W.P.No.12738 of 2021,

Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, the learned Special Government Pleader

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 25 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the extension which

was granted earlier by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

vide Notification No.1 of 2020, dated 25.06.2020 specifically applied to

all those defaulters whose registrations had been revoked upto 12 th June

2020 and that the time was granted upto 31st August 2020 for filing

appropriate application for revocation of cancellation of registration under

Sub-Section (1) of Section 30 of the respective GST Act, 2017.

31. It is further submitted that the petitioner ought to have not only

paid the tax on time, but also filed the returns in time to avail the benefit

of the Notification No.1 of 2020 – Central Tax, dated 25.06.2020.

32. The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent

further submits that the subsequent extension of time vide Notification

No.34 of 2021 – Central Tax, issued by the Department of Revenue,

Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, dated 29.08.2021

amending/modifying the Notification No.35/2020 – Central Tax, dated

03.04.2020 would apply only to those defaulters whose time for making

an application for revocation of cancellation of registration under Sub-

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 26 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

Section (1) of Section 30 of the Act fell during the period between 1 st day

of March 2020 to 31st day of March 2021 and therefore, the benefit of the

above notification was not available to the petitioner.

33. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of

the respondent also referred to Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and

submitted that as per proviso to Rule 23 of CGST Rules, no application

for revocation shall be filed if the registration has been cancelled for

failure of the registered person to furnish returns unless such returns are

furnished and any amount due as tax in terms of such returns are paid

along with any amount payable towards interest, penalty and late fee in

respect of the said returns. It is further submitted that as per the second

proviso, the time that was extended was 30 days and therefore, there is no

merits in this Writ Petition.

34. By way of a re-joinder, Mr.Adithya Reddy, the learned counsel

for the petitioner in W.P.No.12738 of 2021 submits that the difficulty is

on the account of the architecture of the web portal of the respondent as

the petitioner has paid the amount but the web portal does not open up to

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 27 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

entertain the application filed under Section 30(1) of the respective GST

Act for revocation of the registration r/w Rule 22 of CGST Rules.

35. Mr.Adithya Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.No.12738 of 2021 has drawn the attention of this Court to Circular

No.158/14/2021 – GST issued by the Department of Revenue, Central

Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, dated 06.09.2021 wherein it has

been clarified as follows:

“3.Application covered under the scope of the said notification

3.1.....

(i). ...

(ii). ....

(iii). ....

(iv). .....

(v). application for revocation of cancellation of registration was filed, the proper officer rejected the application and the appeal has been decided against the taxpayer-

In such cases, taxpayer may file a fresh application for revocation and the officer shall process the application for revocation considering the extended timelines as provided vide the said notification.”

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 28 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

36. In W.P.No.17237 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the

impugned order dated 29.07.2021 passed by the first respondent viz.,

Appellate Commissioner made in Appeal No.104 of 2021 under Section

107(1) of the TNGST Act, 2017.

37. It is the specific case of the petitioner in W.P.No.17237 of 2021

that the petitioner's registration was cancelled by the second respondent

vide order dated 17.10.2019 pursuant to the issuance of show cause

notice dated 25.09.2019.

38. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal

before the first respondent/Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of

TNGST Act, 2017 which came to be dismissed vide the impugned order

on the ground that the petition has been filed belatedly.

39. Mr.B.RamesshKumaar, the learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.No.17237 of 2021submits that during the pendency of Appeal before

the Appellate Commissioner, several orders came to be passed relaxing

the limitation for filing appropriate applications and the benefit of those

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 29 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

circulars/orders of the Government should be extended to the petitioner.

40. Opposing the prayer in W.P.No.17237 of 2021,

Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, the learned Special Government Pleader

appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that pursuant to the

notification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

vide Notification No.1 of 2020, dated 25.06.2020, the time limit for filing

appropriate application for revocation stood extended subject to

compliance of other requirements as contemplated under Rule 22 of the

TNGST Rules, 2017 by 30 days from 31st August 2020.

41. It is further submitted that the petitioner in W.P.No.17237 of

2021 failed to avail the opportunity of the aforesaid order issued under

Section 17(2) of CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, the petitioner cannot

seek any benefit on account of the above Government Orders.

42. It is also submitted that the subsequent relaxations in terms of

Notification No.34 of 2021 – Central Tax, issued by the Department of

Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, dated 29.08.2021

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 30 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

also will not apply as the petitioner has not filed an application for

revocation in time and therefore, the case of the petitioner would not come

within its purview.

43. Assisting the Court, Mr.Adithya Reddy, the learned counsel for

the petitioner in W.P.Nos.12738 of 2021 & 14241 of 2020 would submit

in a somewhat identical situation where one of the assessee had preferred

a Writ Petition and challenged the order of the Appellate Commissioner

under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, this Court intervened by its

order dated 22.09.2021 in W.P.Nos.20083 & 20086 of 2021.

44. In W.P.No.20722 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the

impugned dated 16.11.2021 passed by the respondent, for cancellation of

GST Registration in respect of Show Cause Notice dated 26.10.2018.

45. Dr.A.Thiyagarajan, the learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner submits that the respondent issued a Show Cause Notice dated

26.10.2018 to the petitioner under Section 29(2)(c) of TNGST ACT, i.e.

for non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months. The

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 31 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

petitioner filed a reply to the Show Cause Notice vide letter dated

08.11.2018 stating that there was no sufficient transaction, for filing of

returns. Thereafter, the respondent has passed an order of cancellation of

GST registration dated 16.11.2021.

46. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal,

under Section 107 of GST Act read with Rule 108(1) of GST. However as

per Section 107 of GST Act, appeal has to be filed within the period

prescribed from the date of order and if there is sufficient cause for delay

in filing of appeal, then additional period of one month may be granted.

47. Dr.A.Thiyagarajan, the Senior Counsel for the petitioner further

submits that while filing the appeal, the petitioner was directed to deposit

a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- on 16.04.2021. It is submitted that the petitioner

has remitted a sum of Rs. 1,64,484/- as on 16.04.2021.

48. Dr.A.Thiyagarajan, the Senior Counsel also submits that there

is a delay in filing of the appeal [Delay of 11 months and. 24 days]. The

appellate authority Vide order Rc.No: 440/2021 by a memo dated

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 32 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

30.04.2021 however dismissed the appeal. The reason for dismissal was

the appellate authority has no power to condone delay in filing the appeal.

The petitioner cannot make an appeal further, as there is no Appellate

Tribunal constituted under this act.

49. In W.P.No.20945 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the

impugned order dated 06.09.2021 passed by the first respondent viz.,

Appellate Commissioner rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner

against the order passed by the second respondent dated 29.08.2018 by

which the registration of the petitioner was cancelled under the provisions

of the TNGST Act, 2017.

50. The petitioner in W.P.No.20945 of 2021 has filed an appeal

against the aforesaid order of the second respondent dated 29.08.2018 on

25.08.2021 pursuant to which the impugned order dated 06.09.2021

came to be passed.

51. Mr.K.M.Malarmannan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 33 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

W.P.No.20945 of 2021 submits that the petitioner was entitled for

revocation of the order cancelling the registration in terms of Section

30(1) of the TNGST Act, 2017.

52. Opposing the prayer in W.P.No.20945 of 2021,

Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, the learned Special Government Pleader

appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the petitioner

has not attempted to file appropriate application by uploading the returns

and paying the taxes on time. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is liable

to be dismissed.

53. It is to be noted that the Appellate Commissioner has dismissed

the appeal preferred by the petitioner with the following observations:-

“(iv). In the appellants case, the order of cancellation of registration has been communicated to the appellants on 29.08.2018 through online. The appellants had time till 28.11.2018 to file appeal against the order of cancellation before this forum. Further as per Section 107(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017 the appellant also had one month time for sufficient cause from non-presenting the appeal within the period of three months as

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 34 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

per Section 107(1) of the TNGST Act. Such time of further one month expired on 28.12.2018.”

54. In W.P.No.21237 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the

impugned order dated 29.03.2021 passed by the first respondent viz.,

Appellate Commissioner rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner

against the order passed by the second respondent dated 08.10.2018 by

which the registration of the petitioner was cancelled under the provisions

of the TNGST Act, 2017.

55. Mr.K.M.Malarmannan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.No.21237 of 2021 submits that the petitioner has filed an appeal

against the aforesaid order of the second respondent dated 08.10.2018 on

24.03.2021 pursuant to which the impugned order dated 29.03.2021

came to be passed. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was

entitled for revocation of the order cancelling the registration in terms of

Section 30(1) of the TNGST Act, 2017.

56. Opposing the prayer in W.P.No.21237 of 2021,

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 35 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, the learned Special Government Pleader

appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the petitioner

has not attempted to file appropriate application by uploading the returns

and paying the taxes on time. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is liable

to be dismissed.

57. It is also to be noted that the Appellate Commissioner has

dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner in in W.P.No.21237 of

2021 with the following observations:

“(iii). In the appellants case, the order of cancellation of registration has been communicated to the appellants on 08.10.2018 through online. The appellants had time till 07.01.2019 to file appeal against the order of cancellation before this forum. Further If appellant satisfies those conditions in the Section 107(4), further period of one month would also be expired on 07.02.2019.

(iv). The appellant has filed the appeal before this forum only on 25.03.2021 by a further delay of 2 Years One Month Nine Days which is beyond the statutory period for filing the appeal.”

58. W.P.No.21315 of 2021 has been filed seeking for a writ of

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 36 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

mandamus directing the respondent to revoke the cancellation of the

Petitioner's GST Registration in GSTIN/UIN : 33ABKFS8764LIZF by

considering the Petitioner's Representation dated 02.09.2021.

59. The facts on record indicates that the petitioner in

W.P.No.21315 of 2021 was issued with a show cause notice dated

17.12.2018 to show cause as to why the petitioner's registration should

not be cancelled for not having filed the returns for a continuous period of

6 months in terms of Section 29 of the TNGST Act, 2017 r/w Rule 22 of

TNGST Rules.

60. The petitioner in W.P.No.21315 of 2021 appears to have filed

his reply on 02.09.2021 and explained that the petitioner could not file his

returns from May 2018 and pursuant to the same he was issued with

notice dated 17.12.2018 asking him to appear before the respondent on

24.12.2018. However, in the beginning of December, the petitioner fell ill

and he could not carry on his business and incurred financial losses and

therefore, the petitioner could not appear for personal hearing.

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 37 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

61. Mr.S.Patrick, the learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.No.21315 of 2021 submits that the registration of the petitioner was

cancelled on 01.02.2019 and therefore, if a chance is given to the

petitioner, the petitioner will be able to explain as to why the petitioner

could not file his returns in time.

62. Further, in paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the

W.P.No.21315 of 2021, the petitioner has stated as follows:-

“9. I state that there are no pending GST dues from before the date of cancellation of the GST Registration. I also submit that I have duly filed my GST returns until February, 2019, after which I was unable to file my returns/pay due to the cancellation of the GST Registration. I undertake to file my returns and pay all of my due and any late fees within a period of 4 weeks or any time period as directed by this Hon'ble Court.”

63. Opposing the prayer in W.P.No.21315 of 2021,

Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, the learned Special Government Pleader

appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that the petitioner

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 38 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

should have either filed an application for revocation of cancellation of

registration under Section 30 of the TNGST Act, 2017 or the petitioner

should have filed an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner under

Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017 and therefore, there is no merits in

this Writ Petition.

64. It is further submitted that without challenging the order

cancelling the registration, it is not open to the petitioner to seek for

mandamus and therefore, on this ground also, the Writ Petition is liable to

be dismissed.

65. In W.P.No.23374 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the

impugned order passed by the first respondent on 16.08.2021 by rejecting

the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the

second respondent dated 22.01.2019 cancelling the GST registration of

the petitioner under Section 29 of TNGST Act, 2017.

66. It is the specific case of the petitioner in W.P.No.23374 of 2021

that the petitioner had replied to the show cause notice dated 07.01.2019,

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 39 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

however the second respondent had passed an order on 22.01.2019

cancelling the registration of the petitioner.

67. Mr.K.M.Malarmannan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.No.23374 of 2021 would submit that the petitioner had preferred an

appeal before the Appellate Commissioner, however the Appellate

Commissioner has rejected the Appeal on the ground of limitation.

68. Opposing the prayer in W.P.No.23374 of 2021, the learned

Special Government Pleader Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan submits that there

is no scope for extending the period of limitation for filing the appeal and

therefore, the Appellate Commissioner has rightly passed the order and

therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

69. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also not filed an

application for Revocation of the cancellation of license under Section

30(1) of the TNGST Act and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for

any relief. It is also further submitted that the petitioner is also not entitled

to any of the relaxations given by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 40 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

Customs vide Notification No.1 of 2020, dated 25.06.2020 and

Notification No.34 of 2021 – Central Tax, issued by the Department of

Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, dated

29.08.2021.

70. The learned Special Government Pleader further submits that

there is no clarity as to whether the petitioner has filed the returns while

filing an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner and therefore, for the

reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

71. In W.P.No.24967 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the

impugned order passed by the first respondent on 02.09.2021 by rejecting

the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the

second respondent dated 07.02.2019 cancelling the GST registration of

the petitioner under Section 29 of TNGST Act, 2017.

72. It is the specific case of the petitioner in W.P.No.24967 of 2021

that after the issuance of show cause notice dated 19.12.2018 calling

upon the petitioner to reply for the same, the second respondent had

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 41 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

passed an order on 07.02.2019 cancelling the registration of the

petitioner.

73. Mr.B.Ramesh Kumaar, the learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.No.24967 of 2021 would submit that as the show cause notice was

sent through online and the petitioner saw the notice belatedly, the

petitioner could not reply within the time limit and therefore, the

petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner.

However, the Appellate Commissioner has rejected the Appeal on the

ground of limitation.

74. Opposing the prayer in W.P.No.24967 of 2021, the learned

Special Government Pleader Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan submits that there

is no scope for extending the period of limitation for filing the appeal and

therefore, the Appellate Commissioner has rightly passed the order and

therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted

that the petitioner has also not filed an application for Revocation of the

cancellation of license under Section 30(1) of the TNGST Act and

therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 42 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

75. It is also further submitted that the petitioner is also not entitled

to any of the relaxations given by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and

Customs vide Notification No.1 of 2020, dated 25.06.2020 and

Notification No.34 of 2021 – Central Tax, issued by the Department of

Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, dated

29.08.2021.

76. The learned Special Government Pleader further submits that

there is no clarity as to whether the petitioner has filed the returns while

filing an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner and therefore, for the

reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

77. In W.P.No.25118 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the

impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 03.11.2021 rejecting

the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 30.10.2019

passed by the second respondent cancelling the registration of the

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 43 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

petitioner under Section 29 of the TNGST Act, 2017.

78. Mr.M.Elango, the learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.No.25118 of 2021 submits that though the order has been cancelled,

the petitioner is entitled for benefit of the Notification No.34 of 2021 –

Central Tax, issued by the Department of Revenue, Central Board of

Indirect Taxes and Customs, dated 29.08.2021 and therefore, the Writ

Petition deserves to be allowed.

79. Opposing the prayer in W.P.No.25118 of 2021, the learned

Special Government Pleader Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan appearing on

behalf of the respondent would submit that there is no error in the

impugned order in as much as the petition itself was filed belatedly and as

an Appellate Commissioner, the first respondent cannot be expected to

extend the time period. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not

vigilant enough to opt for any relaxation in terms of Notification No.1 of

2020, dated 25.06.2020 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes

and Customs and Circular No.158/14/2021 – GST issued by the

Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs,

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 44 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

dated 06.09.2021. Thus, there is no merit in the case of the petitioner and

the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

80. In W.P.No.25146 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the

impugned order dated 27.08.2021 passed by the Respondent for

Revocation of cancellation of GST Registration in respect of Show Cause

Notice dated 13.05.2019. The Respondent issued a notice dated

13.05.2019 to the petitioner u/s 29(2)(c) of TNGST Act , i.e. for non-

filing of return for a period of Six months. The petitioner filed a reply to

the Show Cause Notice vide letter dated 21.05.2019. Thereafter, the

respondent had passed an order for cancellation of GST registration dated

27.05.2019.

81. Mr.Ashish, the learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.No.25146 of 2021 submits that aggrieved by the order of the

respondent, the petitioner filed an application, against cancellation of the

registration praying for Revocation of cancellation of registration which

was numbered as Rc.No.1290/2021/A1.

82. He further submits that though all tax returns and dues had

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 45 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

been filed the said appeal was dismissed by the respondent on the ground

that there was delay in filing appeal (appeal was filed by delay of two

years and three months). The maximum limitation period is 3 Months and

(additional 1 Month may be granted ) as per Section 107 of GST Act,

2017.

83. In W.P.No.25147 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the

impugned order dated 27.08.2021 passed by the Respondent for

Revocation of cancellation of GST Registration in respect of Show Cause

Notice dated 16.10.2019. The Respondent issued a notice dated

16.10.2019 to the petitioner u/s 29(2)(c) of TNGST Act , i.e. for non-

filing of return for a period of Six months. The petitioner filed a reply to

the Show Cause Notice vide letter dated 26.10.2019. Thereafter, the

respondent had passed an order for cancellation of GST registration dated

27.05.2019.

84. Mr.Ashish, the learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.No.25147 of 2021 submits that the petitioner, aggrieved by the order

of the respondent, filed an application, against cancellation of the

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 46 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

registration praying for Revocation of cancellation of registration which

was numbered as Rc.No.1289/2021/A1. Though all tax returns and dues

had been filed the said appeal was dismissed by the respondent on the

ground that there was delay in filing appeal (appeal was filed by delay of

One Year and Nine Months). The maximum limitation period is 3 Months

and (additional 1 Month may be granted ) as per Section 107 of GST Act,

2017.

85. In W.P.No.25156 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the

impugned order dated 27.08.2021 passed by the respondent for

revocation of cancellation of GST Registration in respect of Show Cause

Notice dated 16.10.2019.

86. Mr.Ashish, the learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.No.25147 of 2021 submits that the Respondent issued a notice dated

16.10.2019 to the petitioner u/s 29(2)(c) of TNGST Act , i.e. for non-

filing of return for a period of Six months. The petitioner filed a reply to

the Show Cause Notice vide letter dated 26.10.2019. Thereafter, the

respondent had passed an order for cancellation of GST registration dated

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 47 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

27.05.2019.

87. He further submits that the petitioner, aggrieved by the order of

the respondent, filed an application, against cancellation of the

registration praying for Revocation of cancellation of registration which

was numbered as Rc.No.1289/2021/A1. Though all tax returns and dues

had been filed the said appeal was dismissed by the respondent on the

ground that there was delay in filing appeal (appeal was filed by delay of

One Year and Nine Months). The maximum limitation period is 3 Months

and (additional 1 Month may be granted ) as per Section 107 of GST Act,

2017.

88. In W.P.No.25678 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the

impugned order dated 04.02.2019 passed by the respondent revoking the

GST registration of the petitioner under Section 29 of the TNGST Act,

2017.

89. It is the further case of the petitioner in W.P.No.25678 of 2021

that the petitioner has also paid the late fee of Rs.16,000/- for filing the

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 48 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

returns on 29.10.2021. It is further submitted that right after the inception

of GST, the petitioner has been out of business and therefore, there is no

tax liability and hence, the petitioner is only required to file NIL returns

all through the period.

90. Mr.R.Senniappan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.No.25678 of 2021 submits that as against the impugned order dated

04.02.2019, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Appellate

Commissioner on 27.10.2021 which has not been taken up for disposal.

The learned counsel would further submit that the time limit for filing an

appeal stood extended vide the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

dated 08.03.2021 passed in the wake of outbreak of Covid- 19 Pandemic

and submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide the said order had

clarified as follows:

“We also take judicial notice of the fact that the steep rise in COVID-19 Virus cases is not limited to Delhi alone but it has engulfed the entire nation. The extraordinary situation caused by the sudden and second outburst of COVID-19 Virus, thus, requires extraordinary measure to minimize the hardship of litigant- public in all the states. We, therefore, restore

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 49 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

the order dated 23rd March, 2020 and in continuation of the order dated 8th March, 2021 direct that the period(s) of limitation, as prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, whether condonable or not, shall stand extended till further orders.”

91. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.25678 of

2021submits that the appeal ought to have been taken up and disposed on

merits.

92. Opposing the prayer in W.P.No.25678 of 2021, the learned

Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent would

submit that the appeal apart from being time barred, the payment was

also made by the petitioner after filing of the appeal on 29.10.2021 and

therefore, on this ground also, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

93. In W.P.No.12683 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the

impugned order dated 05.11.2019 passed by the first respondent for

cancellation of GST Registration in respect of Show Cause Notice dated

21.10.2019. The petitioner also prays to the Hon'ble Court to direct the

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 50 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

first respondent to restore the GST registration certificate.

94. In W.P.No.12685 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the

impugned order dated 23.04.2021 passed by the second respondent in

Appeal No.141 of 2020 filed against the order of cancellation of

registration which has been impugned in above W.P.No.12683 of 2021.

95. Mr.P.Rajkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.No.12683 & 12685 of 2021 submits that the respondents issued a

Show Cause Notice dated 21.10.2019 to the petitioner under Section

29(2)(c) of TNGST Act., i.e. for non-filing of returns for a continuous

period of six months.

96. He further submits that the first respondent had granted seven

days time for filing of objection and directed the petitioner to appear for

personal hearing dated 23.10.2019. However the petitioner failed to mark

his presence before the first respondent, for which the respondent passed

an order dated 05.11.2019 cancelling the registration of the petitioner.

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 51 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

97. It is submitted that the petitioner having filed the returns for the

Months of April 2019 to October 2019 and have paid necessary taxes on

09.03.2019,the petitioner tried to file an application for revocation of the

registration certificate, but the said application was denied by the portal.

So, the petitioner made a statutory appeal before the second respondent

on 13.03.2021 challenging the order dated 05.11.2019 passed by the first

respondent. The ground on which the petitioner filed an appeal is that,

there are 100 workers employed and so if the registration is revoked the

petitioner could restart the business and provide continued employment

for them and also could generate revenue for the Government.

98. It is submitted that the second Respondent in Appeal No. 141

of 2020 has dismissed the appeal as time barred in terms of section 107 of

the TNGST Act. The said order was passed on 23.04.2021 by the second

respondent. The time to statutory appeal expired on 04.03.2021, and so

the order dated 08.03.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo-

moto Writ Petition (civil) No.3 of 2020 does not apply to petitioner's case.

99. In W.P.No.25026 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 52 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

impugned order dated 04.10.2019 cancelling the registration of the

petitioner on account of the petitioner's failure to file returns for a

continuous period of six months. The impugned order of the respondent is

challenged primarily on the ground that the show cause notice was issued

on 01.08.2019 fixing the hearing on 02.08.2019, contrary to the

provisions of the applicable GST Rules and Section 29 of the TNGST Act,

2017.

100. It is submitted that the petitioner in W.P.No.25026 of

2021also appeared for personal hearing and filed his reply on 11.08.2019

and requested for time. However, without awaiting reply, the respondent

proceeded to pass orders on 04.10.2019 and therefore, the petitioner is

aggrieved by the aforesaid order.

101. Mr.C.Subramanian, the learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.No.25026 of 2021 further submits that the petitioner is engaged in

renting out immovable properties which is liable to tax under the

provisions of Finance Act, 1994 and after the advent of GST from

01.07.2017, anomalous situation has arisen, as the petitioner still

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 53 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

continues to render service but is unable to pay the tax. It is further

submitted that for the period upto default i.e., October 2019, the

petitioner has also paid the tax and returns post facto and therefore, there

should be an order for revoking the cancellation made by the respondent

on 01.08.2019.

102. Opposing the prayer in W.P.No.25026 of

2021,Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, the learned Special Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner has neither filed

an appeal against the order dated 01.08.2019, cancelling his registration

nor took any effective steps for revoking the cancellation of registration in

terms of Section 30(1) of the TNGST Act, 2017 r/w Rule 22 of the

TNGST Rules, 2017 and therefore, submits that the Writ Petition is

devoid of merits and have to be dismissed.

103. By way of rejoinder, Mr.C.Subramanian, the learned counsel

for the petitioner in W.P.No.25026 of 2021submits that the Government

has issued relaxation in terms of Notification No.1 of 2020, dated

25.06.2020 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 54 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

and Circular No.158/14/2021 – GST issued by the Department of

Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, dated 06.09.2021

and those Orders/Circulars implementing the orders passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 08.03.2021 and 23.09.2021 ought to be

applied to the facts of the case and accordingly, the time granted has to be

extended.

104. The petitioner in W.P.No.14508 of 2021 had received a show

cause notice dated 21.10.2019 in Form GST REG-17 to show cause as to

why the GST Registration of the petitioner should not be cancelled. On

account of the fact that the petitioner had failed to pay the tax to the

account of the Central/State Government beyond a period of three months

from the date of such payment becomes due. The petitioner was directed

to file a reply within a period of seven days from the date of service of the

aforesaid notice and directed to paid on 24.10.2019.

105. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.14508 of 2021 that

the respondent fix the personal hearing even before the petitioner could

file a reply and thereafter proceeded to pass an order on 31.10.2019.

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 55 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

106. Mr.P.V.Sudakar, the learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.No.14508 of 2021 submits that the petitioner was entitled to avail

the benefit of Order No.01/2020-Central Tax dated 25.06.2020 as per

which the time stood extended or computing the limitation. In this case,

the limitation would have expired on the 30 th day from 31.08.2020. It is

further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has suo motu

suspended the limitation by its order dated 08.03.2021 and previous order

dated 23.03.2020.

107. Mr.P.V.Sudakar, the learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.No.14508 of 2021 further submits that the grounds stated in the

show cause notice dated 21.10.2019 is not filed under Section 29 of the

respective GST Act.

108. Opposing the prayer in W.P.No.14508 of 2021, Ms.Amirta

Poonkodi Dinakaran, the learned Government Advocate for the

respondent submits that the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the

impugned order. The petitioner was also filed an Appeal before the

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 56 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

Appellate Commissioner which has been rejected.

109. In W.P.No.126 of 2022, the petitioner has challenged the

impugned order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the first respondent

Assistant Commissioner(ST) cancelling the registration of the petitioner

for failing to file returns for the period between July 2017 to October

2019

110. In W.P.No.128 of 2022, the petitioner has challenged the

impugned order dated 17.08.2021 passed by the second respondent in

Appeal No.157 of 2021 filed by the petitioner against the order dated

07.06.2019, the cancellation order impugned in W.P.No.126 of 2022.

111. Mr.R.Senniappan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.Nos.126 & 128 of 2022 has placed reliance on the order passed by

the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Tvl.Sunpenta

Mining Servise Private Limited, Salem Vs The Assistant

Commissioner (ST), Salem and another, passed in W.P.Nos.20083 &

20086 of 2021 dated 22.09.2021.

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 57 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

112. Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned Additional Government

Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents in W.P.Nos.126 & 128

of 2022.Opposing the prayer in W.P.Nos.126 & 128 of 2022, the learned

Additional Government Pleader for the respondents submits that the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court suo motu extending the time filing

the appeal and the limitation vide order dated 23.03.2020 and the

subsequent enlargement of time is not applicable to the facts of the case

inasmuch as the impugned order in W.P.No.126 of 2022 was passed long

before the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and that the limitation for

filing an appeal under Section 137 of the respective GST Acts and for

revocation of the order cancelling the registration had expired and

therefore submits that no case is made out for interference. It is the

specific case as to whether the revenue stands to gain by cancelling the

registration.

113. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the

respondents submits that even though the Government is satisfactory with

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 58 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

the revenue, the clarification of the registration implies that persons whose

registration has been cancelled cannot carry out the business supplying

service with tax and the respective GST enactments.

114. Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned Additional Government

Pleader also takes notice on behalf of the respondents in W.P.Nos.26187

& 26190 of 2021.

115. The petitioner in W.P.Nos.26187 & 26190 of 2021 had

received a Show Cause Notice dated 12.09.2019 under Section 29 of the

Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as

the TNGST Act) to show cause as to why the GST Registration of the

petitioner should not be cancelled for not having filed the returns for a

continuous period of six months. The petitioner appears to have replied to

the same which culminated in an order dated 22.10.2019 of the first

respondent herein.

116. The petitioner in W.P.Nos.26187 & 26190 of 2021 has an

alternate remedy under Section 30 of the TNGST Act, 2017 for revocation

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 59 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

of the suspension order within the time stipulated under Section 30 of the

TNGST Act, 2017 or in the alternative file an appeal within a period of

thirty days under Section 117 of the TNGST Act, 2017.

117. Mr.P.Rajkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.Nos.26187 & 26190 of 2021 submits that the petitioner opted to file

an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner on 20.07.2021 which has

culminated in the impugned order of the second respondent Appellate

Deputy Commissioner. The operative portion of the impugned order reads

as under:-

“Tvl.Aurum Creamy Zone having office at 1335, Avinashi Road, Peelamedy, Coimbatore-04 is a registered dealer in the books of the Assistant Commissioner (ST) Peelamedy North Circle. The appellant Registration Certificate was cancelled on 22.10.2019 for non filing of monthly returns for continuous period of 6 months. Aggrieved against the above order, this appeal has been filed on 20.07.2021. The above appeal was taken for admission on 27.07.2021. During the hearing, the appellant reiterated the grounds mentioned in the Appeal filed. As per section 107(1) & (4) of the CGST/SGST Act an appeal to the 1st Appellate Authority has to be filed within 3 months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated. If sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of 3 months of shown a further period of one month is allo10wed. In

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 60 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

this appeal 4 months (3 months + 1 month) time period ends on 22.02.2020 for the Registration Certificate cancelled date of 22.10.2019. Hence, the above appeal filed is time barred. Hence the above appeal petition is dismissed.”

118. The only ground on which the impugned order has been

passed is that the appeal was filed beyond the time limit prescribed under

Section 117 of the TNGST Act, 2017 for filing an appeal against the order

dated 22.10.2019. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on

the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 23.03.2020 modified

and extended by the subsequent order dated 08.03.2021 and finally by

another order dated 23.09.2021.

119. Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government

Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents in W.P.No.507 of 2022

reiterated the submissions already made in the batch.

120. In W.P.No.507 of 2022, the petitioner has challenged the

impugned order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST)(GST) in

Appeal No.426 of 2021 dated 01.11.2021. The petitioner is an

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 61 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

entrepreneur of the "Mahalakshmi Engineering" Company registered

under the provisions of the GST Act, vide GSTIN/Temporary ID/UIN:

66AOLPV5995E2ZA

121. Mr.V.Kumaresan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.No.507 of 2022 submits that the petitioner had failed to file GST

returns contemplated under the provisions of the GST enactments and

therefore the first respondent had issued a Show Cause Notice dated

11.12.2018 for Cancellation of Registration (Form GST REG-17) called

upon the petitioner to appear on 17.12.2018 at 12.00.p.m. before the first

respondent.

122. However, the petitioner in W.P.No.507 of 2022did not

participate and therefore the Petitioner's Registration was cancelled with

effect from 09.01.2019 vide order dated 09.01.2019 by the first

respondent.

123. The petitioner in W.P.No.507 of 2022 appears to have filed a

Writ Petition in W.P. (MD)Nos.6245, 6247 and 6249 of 2021 which was

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 62 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

disposed by an order dated 19.07.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner in

W.P.No.507 of 2022preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority

on 31.07.2021 against order dated 11.12.2018 of the first respondent.

124. The second respondent had now passed the impugned order

rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner and therefore the option for

revising the impugned order is struck down vide order dated 11.12.2018.

125. Opposing the prayer in W.P.No.507 of 2022, the learned

Special Government Pleader for the respondents Mr.N.R.R.Arun

Natarajan submits that the orders have cited by the learned counsel for

the petitioner in this writ petition, which were passed by the respondents

due to outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic. It is submitted that the order of

cancellation dated 09.01.2019 is long before the outbreak of Covid-19

Pandemic during March 2020. Therefore, there is no merit in W.P.No.507

of 2022

126. In W.P.No.25705 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the

impugned order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the respondent cancelling

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 63 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

the registration of the petitioner in respect of the show cause notice dated

01.10.2019.

127. The petitioner in W.P.No.25705 of 2021 was issued with a

Show Cause Notice dated 01.10.2019 and a reply was also filed by the

petitioner on 16.10.2019. However, the impugned order records that the

registration is being cancelled as the petitioner has not filed monthly

returns for the past six months.

128. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.No.25705 of

2021, Mr.R.Senniappan, the learned counsel would submit that the

Government has issued relaxation in terms of Notification No.1 of 2020,

dated 25.06.2020 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and

Customs and Circular No.158/14/2021 – GST issued by the Department

of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, dated

06.09.2021 and those Orders/Circulars implementing the orders passed

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 08.03.2021 and 23.09.2021 ought to

be applied to the facts of the case and accordingly, the relief sought for

has to be granted.

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 64 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

129. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.25705 of

2021 further submits that the petitioner is engaged in construction

business and had no income and therefore, there is no tax liability. As far

as returns are concerned, the petitioner has uploaded the returns and paid

late fee of Rs.11,500/- and therefore, prays for quashing the impugned

order and directing the respondent to restore the GST registration of the

petitioner.

130. Opposing the prayer in W.P.No.25705 of 2021, the learned

Special Government Pleader Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan appearing on

behalf of the respondent would submit that the affidavit filed by the

petitioner makes it clear that the petitioner undertakes to file the returns

with payment of tax as and when this Court directs to do so and therefore,

as on date of the filing of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has not

complied with the elementary requirements of either paying the tax or

filing the returns.

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 65 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

131. It is further submitted that the fact that the petitioner has

admitted the tax liability also shows that even as on date, the petitioner

has not paid the tax. That apart, it is further submitted that the petitioner

has alternate remedy by way of an appeal before the Appellate

Commissioner under Section 107 of TNGST Act, 2017 which remedy the

petitioner had failed to opt. The petitioner has also not opted to file an

application for revocation of cancellation of registration under sub-section

(1) of Section 30 of the Act and therefore, submits that the Writ Petition

is devoid of merits.

132. By way of rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.No.25705 of 2021 submits that the petitioner has filed an appeal on

26.10.2021 and therefore, the submission made by the learned Special

Government Pleader that the petitioner has not opt for filing an appeal

cannot be countenanced. Further, the learned counsel would submit that

the petitioner is entitled for protection in terms of the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 08.03.2021 and 23.09.2021.

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 66 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

133. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.12683 &

12685 of 2021 submits that in the present case, the petitioner was issued

with a Show Cause Notice, to which, the petitioner has filed reply. He

further submits that the petitioner had also filed an appeal which had

been rejected for the reason that the appeal was filed beyond the period of

limitation under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017.

134. He further submits that the Government has extended the time

for filing application for revocation of cancellation of registration under

Section 30 of the TNGST Act from time to time.

135. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, the

petitioner had filed a petition on 27.09.2021, which has been, rejected on

the ground that no order has been passed in view of the pendency of the

present petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.12683

& 12685 of 2021 submits that the Government has also issue a relaxation

as per Notification No.34/2021 – Central Board of Indirect Taxes and

Customs, dated 29.08.2021.

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 67 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

136. The petitioner during the pendency of these Writ Petitions had

filed an application in terms of Notification No.34/2021 – Central Board

of Indirect Taxes and Customs, dated 29.08.2021. The relevant portion of

the said Notification reads as under:-

G.S.R.....(E).– In partial modification of the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 35/2020-Central Tax, dated the 3 rd April, 2020, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section

(i), vide number G.S.R. 235(E), dated the 3 rd April, 2020 and No. 14/2021-Central Tax, dated the 1 st May, 2021, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-

section (i), vide number G.S.R. 310(E), dated the 1 st May, 2021, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) (hereafter in this notification referred to as the said Act), read with section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (13 of 2017), and section 21 of the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (14 of 2017), the Government, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby notifies that where a registration has been cancelled under clause (b) or (c) of sub-section (2) of section 29 of the said Act and the time limit for making an application of revocation of cancellation of registration under sub-section (1) of section 30 of the said Act falls during the

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 68 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

period from the 1 st day of March, 2020 to 31st day of August, 2021, the time limit for making such application shall be extended upto the 30th day of September, 2021.

137. The learned counsel for the petitioner also drawn the attention

of this Court to Circular No.158/14/2021 – GST issued by the

Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs,

dated 06.09.2021. The operative portion has already been extracted

above.

138. Dealing with the situation where an assessee had filed an

appeal before the Appellate Commissioner and had suffered an order of

the Appellate Commissioner, a request was made in W.P.Nos.20083 &

20086 of 2021, content of which has been extracted above, to direct the

respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders in the light of the

concession given by Notification No.34/2021, dated 29.08.2021 of

Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.

139. Since the petitioner has approached the Authority concerned

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 69 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

before the deadline prescribed as 30.09.2021, these Writ Petitions deserve

to be allowed.

140. In W.P.No.14241 of 2020, the petitioner has challenged the

impugned order dated 11.11.2019 passed by the respondent for

revocation of cancellation of GST Registration in respect to the Show

Cause Notice dated 18.10.2019, and also questioning the jurisdiction of

the respondent with matters relating to examining petitioner's ITC(Input

Tax Credit).

141. Mr.Adithya Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the respondent issued a Show Cause Notice dated

18.10.2019 to the petitioner under Section 29(2) (c) of TNGST Act, i.e.

for non-filing of return for a period of six months. The petitioner filed a

reply to the Show Cause Notice vide letter dated 30.10.2019. Thereafter,

the respondent had passed the impugned order dated 11.11.2019 for

cancellation of GST registration.

142. He further submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 70 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

petitioner filed an application for revocation of cancellation of registration

on 26.08.2020. Along with the application, the petitioner also filed all the

returns for the period in default.

143. It is submitted that the petitioner received a Show cause notice

for rejection of the application and the reason for revocation was

mentioned as "You are requested to provide the details of interest paid in

DR-03 and reversal of ineligible ITC with interest, if any for the period

under cancellation. "

144. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

respondent has no jurisdiction to examine the eligibility of petitioner's

ITC. The respondent proceeded to reject petitioner's application for

revocation vide order dated 07/09/2020 on the basis that, petitioner did

not respond to the show cause notice.

145. It is further submitted that the respondent has assumed that

the petitioner's ITC for the month of March 2019 to September 2019 was

barred by time in terms of section 16(4) of the TNGST Act, which is

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 71 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

considered to be illegal; In any event the respondent has no jurisdiction to

scrutinize the returns filed by the petitioner and point out any defects.

146. In W.P.No.26026 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the

impugned order dated 22.09.2021 passed by the first respondent for

cancellation of GST Registration in respect of Show Cause Notice dated

19.12.2018.

147. Mr.B.Ramesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that respondent issued a Show Cause Notice dated 19.12.2018 to

the petitioner under Section 29(2)(c) of TNGST Act , i.e. for non-filing of

return for a period of six months. The Show Casue Notice was sent

through online. It is case of the petitioner, that the petitioner was

unaware and saw the notice belatedly as the notice was sent through

online.

148. It is stated that the second respondent has cancelled the GST

Registration vide order dated 07.02.2019 without giving further notice

and lso without giving an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner filed

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 72 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

an application for revocation of cancellation of registration in terms of the

Notification No.34/2021- Central Tax, dated 29.08.2021. The System

rejected the application as the application for revocation cannot be filed

beyound 579 days from the date of cancellation.

149. He further submits that aggrieved by the order, the petitioner

filed an appeal vide Appeal No.409 of 2021. But, the first respondent

dismissed the appeal on the ground that there was a delay in filing.

150. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel and respective

counsel for the petitioners in the respective Writ Petitions and the learned

Special Government Pleader, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the

respective respondents.

151. There are broadly four categories of cases. Some of the

petitioners have directly challenged the order of cancellation of GST

registration passed under Section 29 of the respective GST Acts. All these

petitioners had a remedy to file an application under Section 30 of the

respective GST Acts for revocation of cancellation of the registration in

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 73 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

time subject to the conditions prescribed therein or to file an appeal before

the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the respective GST Acts.

152. As far as the second category of cases in W.P.No.14241 of

2020 is concerned, the petitioner has exercised the above option by filing

application under Section 30 of the respective GST Acts. However, the

Original Authority has rejected the same on the ground that the petitioner

has not filed any reply to the notice dated 26.08.2020.

153. The third and fourth categories of cases are similar. After the

orders of cancellation of GST registration were passed, these petitioners,

instead of choosing to file an application under Section 30 of the

respective GST Acts for revocation of cancellation of registration in time,

filed appeals before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the

respective GST Acts belatedly beyond the period prescribed for

condonation of limitation.

154. Some of the appeals filed against the order of cancellation of

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 74 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

GST registration were rejected without numbering, while, some of the

appeals were numbered and rejected on the ground that the time

prescribed for appeal had existed. Appeals filed by these petitioners were

dismissed as these appeals were filed not only beyond the statutory period

of limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the respective GST Acts but

also beyond the condonable period.

155. The law on the limitation has been well settled by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court. In this connection, a reference is invited to the decision of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s.Singh Enterprises Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and Others, (2008) 3

SCC 70, wherein, it has been held that statuary appeal that filed beyond

the statutory period for condonation of delay under Section 35 of the

Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be condoned. This position of law

applies to the facts of these cases.

156. As original or as appellate authority exercising power under

the respective enactments, quasi judicial officers were bound by the

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 75 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

provisions of the Act and the limitation under it, they have acted in

accordane with law. They cannot look beyond the limitations prescribed

under provisions of the Act. Therefore, no fault can be attributed to their

action.

157. Under these circumstances, no fault can be attributed to the

impugned orders passed by the Appellate Commissioner inasmuch as

they cannot exercise jurisdiction beyond the provisions of the Act and are

bound to Act in accordance of the provisions of the Act. At the same time,

I find there are overwhelming reasons for granting reliefs to these

petitioners to restore their registration.

158. Before proceeding to deal further with the issue, it will be

useful to refer the legal changes brought to the tax regime with the

enactments of respective Goods and Services Tax Act. When GST came

into force with effect from 01.07.2017, it was found that there was

overlapping of the jurisdiction by the officers functioning under the

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and respective State/Union

Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This was reconciled by the Central

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 76 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

Government by issuing Circular No.1/2017, dated 20.09.2017. Relevant

portion of Circular No.1/2017, dated 20.09.2017 is reproduced below:-

Based on the decisions taken in the 9th Meeting of the GST Council held on 16 January, 2017 and 21st Meeting of the GST Council held on 9 September, 2017, the following criteria should be followed for the division of taxpayer base between the Centre and the States to ensure single interface:

i. Of the total number of taxpayers below Rs.

1.5 crore turnover, all administrative control over 90% of the taxpayers shall vest with the State tax administration and 10% with the Central tax administration;

ii. In respect of the total number of taxpayers above Rs. 1.5 crore turnover, all administrative control shall be divided equally in the ratio of 50% each for the Central and the State tax administration; iii. The division of taxpayers in each State shall be done by computer at the State level based on stratified random sampling and could also take into account the geographical location and type of the t axpayers, as may be mutually agreed;

2. Further, the broad guidelines for the purposes of computation of "Turnover" as approved by the GST Implementation Committee in its meeting held on 31 August and 1 September 2017 and subsequently by the GST Council in its 21st Meeting held on 9 September 2017 are as follows:

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 77 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

i. For taxpayers registered only under VAT, the total annual State turnover under VAT (including inter-State sales, exports and exempt goods) shall be taken as the basis for division;

ii. For taxpayers registered under both VAT and Central Excise, the annual State turnover under VAT shall be taken as the basis for division as State-level Central Excise turnover is already included in it; iii. For taxpayers registered only under Central Excise (and not under VAT), the total annual turnover declared in Central Excise returns shall be taken as the basis for division; iv. For tax payers registered only under Service Tax in a State on a stand-alone basis, the annual turnover of the Services declared in the Service Tax returns shall be taken as the basis for division;

v. For taxpayers registered only under Service Tax having centralized registration, the annual all-India turnover of the Services declared in the Service Tax returns shall be taken as the basis for division.

vi. For taxpayers registered under both VAT and Service Tax, the total non-overlapping turnover (total of VAT and Service Tax, excluding any turnover which is included in both) shall be calculated and used as the basis for division. The Service Tax turnover shall be on the basis of clauses (iv) and (v) as the case may be.

3. The State Level Committees Commercial Taxes of respective comprising Chief Commissioner/Commissioner States and

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 78 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

jurisdictional Central Tax Chief Commissioners/Commissioners are already in place for effective coordination between the Centre and the States. The said Committees may now take necessary steps for division of taxpayers in each State keeping in view the principles stated above. Supplementary decisions, if any, may be taken by the said Committees to implement the decision of the GST Council, keeping in view the broad principles stated hereinabove.

159. Though the enactment of the respective Goods and Service

Tax Act, 2017 was made without a detailed discussion in the respective

houses of the Parliaments and the Legislative Assemblies of the State and

Union Territories, nevertheless these enactments are comprehensive and

detailed with few design faults which have procedural ramification.

160. As per section 39 of the respective GST enactments, every

registered person, other than an Input Service Distributor of a non-

resident taxable person or a person paying tax under the provisions of

Sections 10 or 51 or 52 shall, for every calendar month or part thereof,

furnish, a return, electronically, of inward and outward supplies of goods

or services on both, input tax credit availed, tax payable, tax paid and

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 79 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

such other particulars, in such form and in such manner and in such time,

as may be prescribed.

161. As per sub-clause (10) to Section 39 of the respective CGST

and TNGST, a registered person shall not be allowed to furnish a return

for a tax period if the return for any of the previous period has not been

furnished. As per the notes on clauses to the above Section, taxes are to

be paid by due date of filing of the return.

162. This clause also provides for the time limit up to which

rectification of any omission or incorrect particulars in the returns can be

carried out. Failure to file returns for 3 consecutive period results in

cancellation of the registration granted under the respective enactments.

163. A comprehensive procedure has been prescribed in Chapter VI

of the respective GST enactments in this regard. As per Section 22 of

these enactments, every supplier is liable to register in the State or Union

Territory, other than special category States, from where any taxable

supply of goods or service or both, are made. Section 22 of the Act reads

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 80 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

as under:-

22. (1) Every supplier shall be liable to be registered under this Act in the State or Union territory, other than special category States, from where he makes a taxable supply of goods or services or both, if his aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds twenty lakh rupees:

Provided that where such person makes taxable supplies of goods or services or both from any of the special category States, he shall be liable to be registered if his aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds ten lakh rupees.

(2) Every person who, on the day immediately preceding the appointed day, is registered or holds a licence under an existing law, shall be liable to be registered under this Act with effect from the appointed day.

(3) Where a business carried on by a taxable person registered under this Act is transferred, whether on account of succession or otherwise, to another person as a going concern, the transferee or the successor, as the case may be, shall be liable to be registered with effect from the date of such transfer or succession.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (3), in a case of transfer pursuant to sanction of a scheme or an arrangement for amalgamation or, as the case may be, demerger of two or more companies pursuant to an order of a

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 81 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

High Court, Tribunal or otherwise, the transferee shall be liable to be registered, with effect from the date on which the Registrar of Companies issues a certificate of incorporation giving effect to such order of the High Court or Tribunal.

Explanation.––For the purposes of this section,––

(i) the expression “aggregate turnover” shall include all supplies made by the taxable person, whether on his own account or made on behalf of all his principals;

(ii) the supply of goods, after completion of job work, by a registered job worker shall be treated as the supply of goods by the principal referred to in section 143, and the value of such goods shall not be included in the aggregate turnover of the registered job worker;

(iii) the expression “special category States” shall mean the States as specified in sub-clause (g) of clause (4) of article 279A of the Constitution.

164. As per Section 22(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax

Act, 2017, every person who, on the day immediately preceding the

appointed day, was registered or held a license under an existing law,

shall be liable to be registered under the Act with effect from the

appointed day.

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 82 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

165. Section 25 of the respective GST enactment contemplates the

procedure for registration. Section 25 of the CGST Act, 2017 reads as

under:

25. (1) Every person who is liable to be registered under section 22 or section 24 shall apply for registration in every such State or Union territory in which he is so liable within thirty days from the date on which he becomes liable to registration, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed:

Provided that a casual taxable person or a non-resident taxable person shall apply for registration at least five days prior to the commencement of business.

Explanation.—Every person who makes a supply from the territorial waters of India shall obtain registration in the coastal State or Union territory where the nearest point of the appropriate baseline is located.

(2) A person seeking registration under this Act shall be granted a single registration in a State or Union territory:

Provided that a person having multiple business verticals in a State or Union territory may be granted a separate registration for each business vertical, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.

(3) A person, though not liable to be registered

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 83 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

under section 22 or section 24 may get himself registered voluntarily, and all provisions of this Act, as are applicable to a registered person, shall apply to such person.

(4) A person who has obtained or is required to obtain more than one registration, whether in one State or Union territory or more than one State or Union territory shall, in respect of each such registration, be treated as distinct persons for the purposes of this Act.

(5) Where a person who has obtained or is required to obtain registration in a State or Union territory in respect of an establishment, has an establishment in another State or Union territory, then such establishments shall be treated as establishments of distinct persons for the purposes of this Act.

(6) Every person shall have a Permanent Account Number issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961 in order to be eligible for grant of registration:

Provided that a person required to deduct tax under section 51 may have, in lieu of a Permanent Account Number, a Tax Deduction and Collection Account Number issued under the said Act in order to be eligible for grant of registration.

(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6), a non-resident taxable person may be granted registration under sub-section (1) on the basis of such other documents as may be prescribed.

(8) Where a person who is liable to be registered under this Act fails to obtain registration, the proper officer may, without prejudice to any

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 84 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

action which may be taken under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, proceed to register such person in such manner as may be prescribed.

(9) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),––

(a) any specialised agency of the United Nations Organisation or any Multilateral Financial Institution and Organisation notified under the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947, Consulate or Embassy of foreign countries; and

(b) any other person or class of persons, as may be notified by the Commissioner, shall be granted a Unique Identity Number in such manner and for such purposes, including refund of taxes on the notified supplies of goods or services or both received by them, as may be prescribed.

(10) The registration or the Unique Identity Number shall be granted or rejected after due verification in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed.

(11) A certificate of registration shall be issued in such form and with effect from such date as may be prescribed.

(12) A registration or a Unique Identity Number shall be deemed to have been granted after the expiry of the period prescribed under sub-section (10), if no deficiency has been communicated to the applicant within that period.

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 85 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

166. Section 26 also deals with a situation for grant of deemed

registration where registration number of unique identity number has

been issued or rejected under the State /Union Territory Goods and

Service Tax Acts, 2017.

167. As far as cancellation or suspension of registration is

concerned, Section 29 of the respective GST enactments deals with the

same. Rule 22 respective of the respective GST Rules, 2017 implements

the provisions of Section 29 of the GST enactment by prescribing

procedure of cancellation. Section 29 of the respective GST enactment

and Rule 22 of the respective GST Rules, 2017 are reproduced as under:-

Section 29 of Central Goods and Rule 22 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - Cancellation Services Rules, 2017 -

of Registration Cancellation of registration (1) The proper officer may, either on (1) Where the proper officer has his own motion or on an application filed reasons to believe that the by the registered person or by his legal registration of a person is liable to be heirs, in case of death of such person, cancelled under section 29, he shall cancel the registration, in such manner issue a notice to such person in and within such period as may be FORM GST REG-17,requiring him prescribed, having regard to the to show cause, within a period of circumstances where,- seven working days from the date of the service of such notice, as to why the business has been discontinued, his registration shall not be transferred fully for any reason cancelled.

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 86 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

Section 29 of Central Goods and Rule 22 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - Cancellation Services Rules, 2017 -

of Registration Cancellation of registration including death of the proprietor, amalgamated with other legal entity, demerged or otherwise disposed of; or

there is any change in the constitution of the business; or

the taxable person, other than the person registered under sub-section (3) of section 25, is no longer liable to be registered under section 22 or section 24.

(2) The proper officer may cancel the (2) The reply to the show cause registration of a person from such date, notice issued under sub-rule (1) including any retrospective date, as he shall be furnished in FORM REG– may deem fit, where,- 18 within the period specified in the said sub-rule.

a registered person has contravened such provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder as may be prescribed; or

a person paying tax under section 10 has not furnished returns for three consecutive tax periods; or any registered person, other than a person specified in clause (b), has not furnished returns for a continuous period of six months; or

any person who has taken voluntary registration under sub-

section (3) of section 25 has not commenced business within six months from the date of

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 87 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

Section 29 of Central Goods and Rule 22 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - Cancellation Services Rules, 2017 - of Registration Cancellation of registration registration; or

registration has been obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts:

Provided that the proper officer shall

not cancel the registration without giving the person an opportunity of being heard.

(3) The cancellation of registration under this section shall not affect the (3) Where a person who has liability of the person to pay tax and submitted an application for other dues under this Act or to discharge cancellation of his registration is no any obligation under this Act or the rules longer liable to be registered or his made thereunder for any period prior to registration is liable to be cancelled, the date of cancellation whether or not the proper officer shall issue an such tax and other dues are determined order in FORM GST REG-19, before or after the date of cancellation. within a period of thirty days from the date of application submitted under [sub-rule (1) of] 16 rule 20 or, as the case may be, the date of the reply to the show cause issued under sub-rule (1), 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, interest or penalty including the amount liable to be paid under sub-section (5) of section 29. (4) The cancellation of registration under the State Goods and Services Tax (4) Where the reply furnished Act or the Union Territory Goods and under sub-rule (2) is found to be Services Tax Act, as the case may be, satisfactory, the proper officer shall shall be deemed to be a cancellation of drop the proceedings and pass an registration under this Act. order in FORM GST REG –20:

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 88 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

Section 29 of Central Goods and Rule 22 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - Cancellation Services Rules, 2017 -

of Registration Cancellation of registration [Provided that where the person instead of replying to the 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 FORM GST-REG 20] 17 (5) Every registered person whose registration is cancelled shall pay an (5) The provisions of sub-rule (3) amount, by way of debit in the electronic shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the credit ledger or electronic cash ledger, legal heirs of a deceased proprietor, equivalent to the credit of input tax in as if the application had been respect of inputs held in stock and inputs submitted by the proprietor himself.

contained in semi-finished or finished goods held in stock or capital goods or plant and machinery on the day immediately preceding the date of such cancellation or the output tax payable on such goods, whichever is higher, calculated in such manner as may be prescribed:

Provided that in case of capital goods or plant and machinery, the taxable person shall pay an amount equal to the input tax credit taken on the said capital goods or plant and machinery, reduced by such percentage points as may be prescribed or the tax on the transaction value of such capital goods or plant and machinery under section 15, whichever is higher

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 89 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

Section 29 of Central Goods and Rule 22 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - Cancellation Services Rules, 2017 -

of Registration Cancellation of registration

(6) The amount payable under sub-

section (5) shall be calculated in such manner as may be prescribed.

168 . Sub Section (2) to Section 29 deals with a situation where, a

proper officer may cancel the registration of a person from such date,

including a retroprospective date, as he may deem such.

169. All the cases under consideration fall under situation under

Sub Clause (2)(c) i.e “where a registered person other than the person

specified in Clause (b) has failed to furnish returns for a continuous

period of 6 months”.

170. All these petitioners were issued with a proper notice as is

contemplated under the aforesaid provision. The orders were also passed

after giving petitioners sufficient opportunity of being heard. Majority of

the petitioners failed to respond notices issued by the respondent State

Tax Officer proposing the cancellation of the registration of the respective

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 90 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

petitioners.

171. One of the options available noticee whose registration is

cancelled, is to approach the same authority for revocation of cancellation

of the registration in the manner prescribed within 30 days from the date

of service of cancellation of registration.

172. When Section 30 was incorporated in the respective GST

enactments with effect from 1st July, 2017, there was no proviso to

Section 30(1) of the Act. Section 30 of the respective GST enactments

read as under:-

Section 30 of - Revocation of Cancellation of Registration

(1) Subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, any registered person, whose registration is cancelled by the proper officer on his own motion, may apply to such officer for revocation of cancellation of the registration in the prescribed manner within thirty days from the date of service of the cancellation order.

(2) The proper officer may, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, by

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 91 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

order, either revoke cancellation of the registration or reject the application:

Provided that the application for revocation of cancellation of registration shall not be rejected unless the applicant has been given an opportunity of being heard.

(3) The revocation of cancellation of registration under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be a revocation of cancellation of registration under this Act.

173. Only, a single window of opportunity was given to file

application within thirty (30) days for revocation of cancellation order

under Section 30(1). However, right from the beginning, GST Council

recognised that the GST law was new and assessees encountered the

difficulties in switching to procedural compliance electronically through

Internet on the GST Web-Portal.

174. Considering the hardship faced by the assesses, the GST

Council in its 33rd Meeting held on 24.02.2019 took a decision. Pursuant

to aforesaid decision, the Central Government, on recommendations of the

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 92 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

GST Council, in exercise of power conferred under Section 172 of the

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, inserted a proviso to Section

30(1) of the respective GST enactments vide Order No.5/2019-GST,

Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, dated 23.04.2019. Thus,

Proviso to Section 30(1) of the Act read as under:-

“Provided that the registered person who was served notice under sub-section (2) of section 29 in the manner as provided in clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 169 and who could not reply to the said notice, thereby resulting in cancellation of his registration certificate and is hence unable to file application for revocation of cancellation of registration under sub-section (1) of section 30 of the Act, against such order passed up to 31.03.2019, shall be allowed to file application for revocation of cancellation of the registration not later than 22.07.2019.”

175. This was a novel and an unconventional method adopted to

amend the Act. It was contrary to the well established procedure under

the Constitution and Law for amending a statute. The above amendment

was a stop gap arrangement. As per the aforesaid proviso which was

inserted to Section 30(1) of the Act, wherever cancellation orders had

been passed upto 31.03.2019 and application for revocation was not filed

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 93 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

within thirty (30) days under Sub-Section 1 to Section 30, an option was

given to file an application for revocation of cancellation of the

registration not later than 22.07.2019.

176. Implementing requirement of section 30 of the GST

enactments, Rule 23 of the GST Rules, 2017 has been prescribed. Section

30 of the GST enactments and Rule 22 of the GST Rules 2017 are

reproduced below:-

Section 30 of the GST Act Rule 22 of the GST Rules, 2017 (1) Subject to such conditions as (1) Where the proper officer has may be prescribed, any registered reasons to believe that the registration person, whose registration is cancelled of a person is liable to be cancelled by the proper officer on his own under section 29, he shall issue a motion, may apply to such officer for notice to such person in FORM GST revocation of cancellation of the REG-17,requiring him to show cause, registration in the prescribed manner within a period of seven working days within thirty days from the date of from the date of the service of such service of the cancellation order. notice, as to why his registration shall not be cancelled.

(2) The proper officer may, in the (2) The reply to the show cause manner and within such period as may notice issued under sub-rule (1) shall be prescribed, by order, either revoke be furnished in FORM REG–18 cancellation of the registration or reject within the period specified in the said the application: sub-rule.

Provided that the application for revocation of cancellation of registration shall not be rejected unless

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 94 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

Section 30 of the GST Act Rule 22 of the GST Rules, 2017 the applicant has been given an opportunity of being heard.

(3) The revocation of cancellation of (3) Where a person who has submitted registration under the State Goods and an application for cancellation of his Services Tax Act or the Union registration is no longer liable to be Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, registered or his registration is liable to as the case may be, shall be deemed to be cancelled, the proper officer shall be a revocation of cancellation of issue an order in FORM GST REG- registration under this Act. 19, within a period of thirty days from the date of application submitted under [sub-rule (1) of] 16 rule 20 or, as the case may be, the date of the reply to the show cause issued under sub-rule (1), 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, interest or penalty including the amount liable to be paid under sub-section (5) of section 29.

(4) Where the reply furnished under sub-rule (2) is found to be satisfactory, the proper officer shall drop the proceedings and pass an order in FORM GST REG –20: [Provided that where the person instead of replying to the 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 FORM GST-REG 20] 17

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 95 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

Section 30 of the GST Act Rule 22 of the GST Rules, 2017 (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.

177. An alternate remedy is also available in the order of

cancellation by way of appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST

enactments which option has been exercised by some of the writ

petitioners but beyond the period of limitation.

178. A reading of Section 29 of the Act respective GST enactments

also makes it clear that cancellation of registration under the aforesaid

section does not affect the liability of a person to pay tax and other dues

under the Act or discharge any obligation under the said Act and the rules

made under for any period prior to the date of cancellation, whether or not

such tax and other dues are determined before or after the date of

cancellation. They also make it clear that cancellation of registration

under anyone of the other GST enactments shall be deemed to be

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 96 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

cancellation of registration under the other GST enactments.

179. None of the petitioners are coming within the limitation

prescribed under Section 30 of the respective GST enactments except the

petitioner in W.P.No.14241 of 2020 whose registration was cancelled

vide order dated 13.11.2019. The said petitioner alone filed an application

on 26.08.2020 before the Assistant Commissioner, the respondent in the

said writ petitioner.

180. However, the respondent rejected the said application simply

stating that the petitioner had not filed any reply to the Show Cause

Notice dated 26.08.2020. A reading of the said Show Cause Notice dated

26.08.2020 merely states that the petitioner was requested to provide the

details of interest paid in DRC-03 and reversal of ineligible ITC with

interest, if any for the period under cancellation.

181. Appeals of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.23374, 20945, 20722,

25146, 25147, 25156, 21237, 26190, 26187 & 14508 of 2021 who opted

to file appeals, were beyond the period for condoning the limitation under

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 97 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

Section 107 of the Act. They were rightly rejected at the preliminary stage

for appeals filed beyond the period of limitation cannot be entertained in

view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Singh

Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and

Others, (2008) 3 SCC 70

182. Similarly, the appeals of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.25048,

17237, 25877, 25118, 24967, 12683, 12685 & 26026 of 2021 and in

W.P.Nos.507, 126 & 128 of 2022 were also rightly rejected after they

were numbered. Their appeals were also rightly rejected correctly as such

appeals were filed beyond the period for condonation of the delay as per

the above decision.

183. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.25678, 21315, 23374, 20945,

20722, 24967, 21237 & 26026 of 2021 and W.P.No.507 of 2022 whose

registration had already been cancelled and who had an opportunity to file

an application under the above proviso also failed to avail the above

opportunity.

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 98 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

184. Nationwide, lockdown was imposed on 24.08.2020 due to the

outbreak of SARS Covid-19 Pandemic. Under these circumstances,

Government, rose to the occasion based on the recommendation of the

GST Council and gave a fresh opportunity to those persons whose right to

file an application under Section 30(1) of the Act and the remedy under

proviso to the Section 30(1) of the Act had expired between 20.03.2020

to 29.06.2020 by extending the period upto 30.06.2020 vide Notification

No.35/2020 – Central Tax, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs,

dated 03.04.2020.

185. This Notification was issued in the exercise of power

conferred under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act,

2017 read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act,

2017 and Section 21 of the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act,

2017. This did not address the case of the above petitioners.

186. However, on 25.06.2020, the Central Government on the

recommendations of the Council, in the exercise of power conferred under

Section 172 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, issued the

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 99 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

Central Goods and Services Tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2020

vide Order No.01/2020-Central Tax, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and

Customs, dated 25.06.2020. Relevant portion of the said Notification

reads as under:-

1. Short title.- This Order may be called the Central Goods and Services Tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2020.-

2. For the removal of difficulties, it is hereby clarified that for the purpose of calculating the period of thirty days for filing application for revocation of cancellation of registration under sub-section (1) of section 30 of the Act for those registered persons who were served notice under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 29 in the manner as provided in clause (c) or clause

(d) of sub-section (1) of section 169 and where cancellation order was passed up to 12th June, 2020, the later of the following dates shall be considered:-

a) Date of service of the said cancellation order; or

b) 31st day of August, 2020.

187. The amnesty in the above Government Order pertains to cases

where orders were passed upto 12.06.2020. This was the first opportunity

given to /the petitioners in W.P.Nos.25048, 12738, 17237, 25877, 25026,

25146, 25147, 25156, 12683, 12685, 25705, 26190, 26187, 14241 &

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 100 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

14508 of 2021 and in W.P.Nos.126 & 128 of 2022 and the second

chance for others to revive their registration.

188. The time for filing appropriate application for revoking the

cancellation of registration was extended either from date of service of the

said cancellation order or 31.08.2020 which was later.

189. Thus, all these petitioners whose registration had been

cancelled prior to 12.06.2020 were given a fresh opportunity to file an

application for revocation of cancellation of registration in terms of the

Central Goods and Services Tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2020

vide Order No.01/2020-Central Tax, Central Board of Indirect Taxes

and Customs, dated 25.06.2020. However, none of the petitioners opted

to exercise the privilege.

190. Mirroring the above Notification, G.O. (Ms). No.102,

Commercial Taxes and Registration (B1) Department, dated 26.06.2020

was issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu. However, none of the

petitioners opted perhaps on account of the fact that the whole world was

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 101 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

reeling under the grip of the 2nd wave of Covid.

191. Later, proviso was substituted by Section 122 of the Finance

Act, 2020 which came into force from 01.01.2021 which reads as under:-

“Provided that such period may, on sufficient cause being shown, and for reasons to be recorded in writing, be extended,—

(a) by the Additional Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner, as the case may be, for a period not exceeding thirty days;

(b) by the Commissioner, for a further period not exceeding thirty days, beyond the period specified in clause (a).”.

192. By Notification No.92/2020-Central Tax, dated 22.12.2020,

the Central Government appointed the 1st day of January, 2021 as the date

on which the provisions of Section 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126,

127 and 131 of the Act shall come into force. Thus, Section 30 of the

GST Acts, came into force with effect from 1st day of January, 2021. The

said Notification reads as under:-

Government of India

Ministry of Finance

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 102 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

(Department of Revenue)

Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

Notification No 92/2020-Central Tax

New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2020

S.O. ...... (E).— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 1 of the Finance Act, 2020 (12 of 2020) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st day of January, 2021, as the date on which the provisions of sections 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127 and 131 of the said Act shall come into force.

[F.No. CBEC-20/06/04/2020-GST]

193. Parallel amendments were made to Rule 23 of the respective

GST Rules and FORM GST REG-21 was amended vide Notification

No.15/2021-Central Tax, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs,

dated 18.05.2021. Rule 23 (Revocation of Cancellation of Registration) of

the respective GST Rules reads as under:-

Rule 23 - Revocation of Cancellation of Registration

1) A registered person, whose registration is cancelled by the proper officer on his own motion, may submit an application for revocation of

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 103 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

cancellation of registration, in FORM GST REG-21, to such proper officer, within a period of thirty days from the date of the service of the order of cancellation of registration [or within such time period as extended by the Additional Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be, in exercise of the powers provided under the proviso to sub- section (1) of section 30,] at the common portal, either directly or through a Facilitation Centre notified by the Commissioner:

Provided that no application for revocation shall be filed, if the registration has been cancelled for the failure of the registered person to furnish returns, unless such returns are furnished and any amount due as tax, in terms of such returns, has been paid along with any amount payable towards interest, penalty and late fee in respect of the said returns. [Provided further that all returns due for the period from the date of the order of cancellation of registration till the date of the order of revocation of cancellation of registration shall be furnished by the said person within a period of thirty days from the date of order of revocation of cancellation of registration.

Provided also that where the registration has been cancelled with retrospective effect the registered person shall furnish all returns relating to period from the effective date of cancellation of registration till the date of order of revocation of cancellation of registration within a period of thirty days from the date of order of revocation of cancellation of registration.]

2) (a) Where the proper officer is satisfied, for

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 104 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

reasons to be recorded in writing, that there are sufficient grounds for revocation of cancellation of registration, he shall revoke the cancellation of registration by an order in FORM GST REG-22 within a period of thirty days from the date of the receipt of the application and communicate the same to the applicant.

(b) The proper officer may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, under circumstances other than those specified in clause (a), by an order in FORM GST REG-05, reject the application for revocation of cancellation of registration and communicate the same to the applicant.

3) The proper officer shall, before passing the order referred to in clause (b) of sub-rule (2), issue a notice in FORM GST REG-23 requiring the applicant to show cause as to why the application submitted for revocation under sub-rule (1) should not be rejected and the applicant shall furnish the reply within a period of seven working days from the date of the service of the notice in FORM GST REG-

24. Upon receipt of the information or clarification in FORM GST REG-24, the proper officer shall proceed to dispose of the application in the manner specified in sub-rule (2) within a period of thirty days from the date of the receipt of such information or clarification from the applicant.

194. The above amendment however did not address the case of the

petitioners whose registrations were cancelled after 31.03.2019 and

before the above amendment to the Act as Rules with effect from

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 105 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

01.01.2021.

195. Thus, rest of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.25048, 12738,

17237, 25877, 25026, 25146, 25147, 25156, 12683, 12685, 25705,

26190, 26187, 14241 & 14508 of 2021 and in W.P.Nos.126 & 128 of

2022 also had no opportunity to file an application under the proviso to

Section 30(1) of the Act.

196. These petitioners had only one option to file an application

within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the order of

cancellation of registration under Section 30(1) of the Act which had

expired long back.

197. Still later, in view of the prevailing situation, Notification

No.34/2021 – Central Tax, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs,

dated 29.08.2021 was issued by the Central Government once again on

the recommendation of the GST Council. Notification No.34/2021 –

Central Tax, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, dated

29.08.2021 which reads as under:-

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 106 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

Government of India

Ministry of Finance

(Department of Revenue)

Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

Notification No. 34/2021 – Central Tax

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2021

G.S.R.....(E).– In partial modification of the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 35/2020-Central Tax, dated the 3 rd April, 2020, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R. 235(E), dated the 3 rd April, 2020 and No. 14/2021- Central Tax, dated the 1st May, 2021, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R. 310(E), dated the 1 st May, 2021, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) (hereafter in this notification referred to as the said Act), read with section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (13 of 2017), and section 21 of the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (14 of 2017), the Government, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby notifies that where a registration has been cancelled under clause (b) or (c) of sub-

section (2) of section 29 of the said Act and the time limit for making an application of revocation of cancellation of registration under sub-section (1) of section 30 of the said Act falls during the period from the 1 st day of March, 2020 to 31st day of August,

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 107 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

2021, the time limit for making such application shall be extended upto the 30th day of September, 2021.

[F. No. CBIC-20006/24/2021-GST]

198. The Central Government in the above Notification took a

decision to extend the time limit upto 30.09.2021 for the persons like

petitioners. However, this was applicable to those registration which had

been cancelled and time limit for filing application for revocation of

cancellation of registration had expired during the period commencing

from the 1st day of March, 2020 to 31st day of August, 2021. Thus, the

time limit for making such application stood extended upto the 30th day of

September, 2021.

199. In the light of the above Notification, the Principal

Commissioner has also issued clarification vide Circular

No.158/14/2021-GST, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs,

dated 06.09.2021, while, tracing out the history, in paragraph Nos.3 and

4, it has been clarified as follows:-

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 108 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

Paragraph No.3 Paragraph No.4 3.1. The said notification specifies that 4. It may be recalled that, with effect where the due date of filing of from 01.01.2021, proviso to Sub-

application for revocation of section (1) of 30 of the CGST Act has cancellation of registration falls been inserted which provides for between 1st March, 2020 to 31 st extension of time for filing application August, 2021, the time limit for filing for revocation of cancellation of of application for revocation of registration by 30 days by cancellation of registration is extended Additional/Joint Commissioner and by to 30 th September 2021. Accordingly, another 30 days by the Commissioner. it is clarified that the benefit of said Doubts have been raised whether the notification is extended to all the cases said notification has extended the due where cancellation of registration has date in respect of initial period of 30 been done under clause (b) or clause days for filing the application (in cases

(c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of where registration has been cancelled the CGST Act, 2017 and where the under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub- due date of filing of application for section (2) of section 29+ of CGST revocation of cancellation of Act, 2017) under sub-section (1) of section 30 of the CGST Act or whether registration falls between 1 st March, the due date of filing applications for 2020 to 31 st August, 2021. It is further revocation of registration can be clarified that the benefit of notification extended further for the period of 60 would be applicable in those cases also days (30+30) by the Joint where the application for revocation of Commissioner/Additional cancellation of registration is either Commissioner/Commissioner, as the pending with the proper officer or has case may be, beyond the extended date already been rejected by the proper of 30.09.2021. It is clarified that:

officer. It is further clarified that the benefit of notification would also be available in those cases which are i. where the thirty days’ time limit pending with the appellate authority or falls between 1st March, 2020 which have been rejected by the to 31st December, 2020, there appellate authority. In other words, the is no provision available to date for filing application for extend the said time period of revocation of cancellation of 30 days under section 30 of the registration in all cases, where CGST Act. For such cases, registration has been cancelled under pursuant to the said notification, clause (b) or clause (c) of Sub-section the time limit to apply for (2) of Section 29 of CGST Act, 2017 revocation of cancellation of and where the due date of filing of registration stands extended up

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 109 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

Paragraph No.3 Paragraph No.4 application for revocation of to 30th September, 2021 only;

cancellation of registration falls and between 1st March, 2020 to 31 st ii. where the time period of thirty August, 2021, is extended to 30 th days since cancellation of September, 2021, irrespective of the registration has not lapsed as on status of such applications. As 1st January, 2021 or where the explained in this para, the said registration has been cancelled notification would be applicable in the on or after 1st January, 2021, following manner: the time limit for applying for revocation of cancellation of registration shall stand extended i. application for revocation of as follows:

cancellation of registration has not been filed by the taxpayer- (a) Where the time period of 90 days (initial 30 days and extension of 30 + 30 days) In such cases, the applications since cancellation of for revocation can be filed upto registration has elapsed by the extended timelines as 31.08.2021, the time limit to provided vide the said apply for revocation of notification. Such cases also cancellation of registration cover those instances where an stands extended upto 30th appeal was filed against order September 2021, without any of cancellation of registration further extension of time by and the appeal had been Joint Commissioner/ Additional rejected. Commissioner/ Commissioner. ii. application for revocation of (b) Where the time period of 60 cancellation of registration days (and not 90 days) since has already been filed and cancellation of registration has which are pending with the elapsed by 31.08.2021, the time proper officer- limit to apply for revocation of cancellation of registration stands extended upto 30th In such cases, the officer shall September 2021, with the process the application for extension of timelines by revocation considering the another 30 days beyond extended timelines as provided 30.09.2021 by the vide the said notification.

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 110 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

Paragraph No.3 Paragraph No.4 Commissioner, on being iii. application for revocation of satisfied, as per proviso to sub-

cancellation of registration section (1) of section 30 of the was filed, but was rejected by CGST Act the proper officer and (c) Where the time period of 30 taxpayer has not filed any days (and not 60 days or 90 appeal against the rejection – days) since cancellation of registration has elapsed by 31.08.2021, the time limit to In such cases, taxpayer may file apply for revocation of a fresh application for cancellation of registration revocation and the officer shall stands extended upto 30th process the application for September 2021, with the revocation considering the extension of timelines by extended timelines as provided another 30 days beyond vide the said notification. 30.09.2021 by the Joint/ Additional Commissioner and another 30 days by the iv. application for revocation of Commissioner, on being cancellation of registration satisfied, as per proviso to sub- was filed, the proper officer section (1) of section 30 of the rejected the application and CGST Act. appeal against the rejection order is pending before appellate authority-

In such cases, appellate authorities shall take the cognizance of the said notification for extension of timelines while deciding the appeal.

v. application for revocation of cancellation of registration was filed, the proper officer rejected the application and

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 111 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

Paragraph No.3 Paragraph No.4 the appeal has been decided against the taxpayer-

In such cases, taxpayer may file a fresh application for revocation and the officer shall process the application for revocation considering the extended timelines as provided vide the said notification.

200. None of the petitioners took advantage of the extension of time

granted in the above Notification for revocation of cancellation of

registration. Instead, some of them have filed appeals before the Appellate

authority.

201. By Circular No.157/13/2021-GST, the Central Board of

Indirect Taxes and Customs, GST Policy Wing, dated 20.07.2021, it was

classified as follows:-

4. On the basis of the legal opinion, it is hereby clarified that various actions/compliances under GST can be broadly categorised as follows:-

a) Proceedings that need to be initiated or

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 112 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

compliances that need to be done by the taxpayers:-

These actions would continue to be governed only by the statutory mechanism and time limit provided/ extensions granted under the statute itself. Various orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would not apply to the said proceedings/ compliances on part of the tax payers.

b) Quasi-Judicial proceedings by tax authorities:-

The tax authorities can continue to hear an dispose off proceedings where they are performing the functions as quasi-judicial authority. This may inte-ralia include disposal of application for refund, application for revocation of cancellation of registration, adjudication proceedings of demand notices, etc. Similarly, appeals which are filed and are pending, can continue to be heard and disposed off and the same will be governed by those extensions of time granted by the statues or notifications, if any.

c) Appeals by taxpayers/ tax authorities against any quasi-judicial order:-

Wherever any appeal is required to filed before Joint/ Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Tribunal and various courts against any quasi-judicial order or where a proceeding for revision or rectification of any order is required to be undertaken, the time line for the same would stand extended as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order.

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 113 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

202. Meanwhile, the Hon’ble Supreme Court taking note of the

hardship faced by the litigants had also extended the limitation by its

orders dated 23.03.2020, 08.04.2021, 27.04.2021 & 23.09.2021 in

Recognizance of Extension of Limitation Vs. xxxx, in Miscellaneous

Application No.665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3/2020.

203. In its order dated 23.09.2021 in the above case, 2021 SCC

OnLine SC 947, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

Therefore, we dispose of the M.A. No. 665 of 2021 with the following directions:—

I. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 03.10.2021.

II. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 03.10.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 03.10.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.

III.The period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 114 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.

IV.The Government of India shall amend the guidelines for containment zones, to state.

“Regulated movement will be allowed for medical emergencies, provision of essential goods and services, and other necessary functions, such as, time bound applications, including for legal purposes, and educational and job-related requirements.”

204. This Court, by its order dated 22.09.2021 in Tvl.Sunpenta

Mining Service Private Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner

(ST), Salem, in W.P.Nos.20083 and 20086 of 2021, and order dated

01.10.2021, in Suresh Trading Corporation Vs. The Asst.

Commissioner (Circle) of SGST, Coimbatore II, in W.P.No.21109 of

2021, granted time for filing fresh application for revocation of the

cancellation of registration.

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 115 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

205. Though the Clarifications and Notifications have been issued

in a staggered manner by rising to the occasions to facilitate the industries

to come back to the GST fold, gap however still continued to haunt these

petitioners under the statute. The cases of the petitioners are now beyond

the clarifications and relaxation referred to supra.

206. It should be however remembered that the provisions of the

Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 cannot be interpreted in such a

manner, so as to debar an assessee, either from obtaining registration or

reviving the lapsed/cancelled registration as such an interpretation would

be not only contrary to the Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India

but also in violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of

India.

207. A reading of Notification No.52/2020 – Central Tax, Central

Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, dated 24.06.2020, further indicates

that returns could be filed belatedly on payment of late fee and waivers

were also granted. Relevant portion of the said Notification reads as

under:-

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 116 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

(ii) after the third proviso, the following provisos shall be inserted, namely: –

“Provided also that the total amount of late fee payable for a tax period, under section 47 of the said Act shall stand waived which is in excess of an amount of two hundred and fifty rupees for the registered person who failed to furnish the return in FORM GSTR-3B for the months of July, 2017 to January, 2020, by the due date but furnishes the said return between the period from 01st day of July, 2020 to 30th day of September, 2020:

Provided also that where the total amount of central tax payable in the said return is nil, the total amount of late fee payable for a tax period, under section 47 of the said Act shall stand waived for the registered person who failed to furnish the return in FORM GSTR-3B for the months of July, 2017 to January, 2020, by the due date but furnishes the said return between the period from 01st day of July, 2020 to 30th day of September, 2020.”.

208. The provisions of the GST Enactments and the Rules made

there under read with various clarifications issued by the Central

Government pursuant to the decision of the GST Council and the

Notification issued thereunder the respective enactments also make it

clear, intention is to only facilitate and not to debar and de-recognised

assesses from coming back into the GST fold.

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 117 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

209. Thus, the intention of the Government has been to allow

the persons like the petitioners to file a fresh application and to

process the application for revocation of the cancellation of

registration by the officers.

210. In my view, no useful purpose will be served by keeping these

petitioners out of the bounds of GST regime under the respective GST

enactments other than to allow further leakage of the revenue and to

isolate these petitioners from the main stream contrary to the objects of

the respective GST enactments.

211. The purpose of GST registration is only to ensure just tax gets

collected on supplies of goods or service or both and is paid to the

exchequer. Keeping these petitioners outside the bounds of the GST

regime is a self defeating move as no tax will get paid on the supplies of

these petitioners.

212. May be, organised companies who comply with the

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 118 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

requirement of GST enactments may not give business with these

petitioners. However, by keeping the petitioners out of the bounds of GST

law, purpose of the Act will not be achieved. It will also not mean that the

petitioners will not do business ie., of either supplying goods or service in

the unorganised sector. They will still do their buisness, may be

surreptitiously and clandestinely.

213. They may perhaps not get opportunity to supply goods or

services to established players. They may still supply to smaller players

who may not be keen on GST compliance by the petitioners.

214. By not allowing the petitioners to revive their registration is to

de-recognise a whole lot of entrepreneurs and to not to collect GST at all

from them.

215. It will only strain the system, as these petitioners will

continue to carry on their business and supply goods and service and/or

end up not paying the GST under the respective GST enactments. It will

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 119 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

lead to loss of revenue to the Government which is not intended when

these enactments were enacted.

216. Since, no useful will be served by not allowing persons like

the petitioners to revive their registration and integrate them back into the

main stream, I am of the view that the impugned orders are liable to be

quashed and with few safeguards.

217. There are adequate safeguards under the GST enactments

which can also be pressed against these petitioners even if their

registration are revived so that, there is no abuse by these petitioners and

there is enough deterrence against default in either paying tax or in

complying with the procedures of filing returns.

218. Further, the Government requires tax to meet its expenditure.

By not bringing these petitioners within the GST fold, unintended

privilege may be conferred on these petitioners unfairly to not to pay GST

should they end supplying goods and/or services without registration. For

example, a person renting out an immoveable property will continue to

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 120 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

supply such service irrespective of registration or not.

219. Therefore, if such a person is not allowed to revive the

registration, the GST will not be paid, unless of course, the recipient is

liable to pay tax on reverse charge basis. Otherwise, also there will be no

payment of value added tax. The ultimate goal under the GST regime will

stand defeated. Therefore, these petitioners deserve a right to come back

into the GST fold and carry on their trade and business in a legitimate

manner.

220. The provisions of the GST Enactments and the Rules made

there under read with various clarifications issued by the Central

Government pursuant to the decision of the GST Council and the

Notification issued thereunder the respective enactments also make it

clear, intention is to only facilitate and not to debar and de-recognised

assesses from coming back into the GST fold.

221. While exercising jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 121 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

Constitution, the powers of the Court to do justice i.e., what is good for

the society, can neither be restricted nor curtailed. This power under

Article 226 can be exercised to effectuate the rule of law.

222. Therefore, power of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India is being exercised cautiously in favour of the

petitioners as this power is conceived to serve the ends of law and not to

transgress them.

223. In Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (1997) 5

SCC 536, in Paragraph No.77, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that

“So far as the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 — or for

that matter, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 — is

concerned, it is obvious that the provisions of the Act cannot bar and

curtail these remedies. It is, however, equally obvious that while

exercising the power under Article 226/Article 32, the Court would

certainly take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions

of the Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the

provisions of the enactment. Even while acting in exercise of the said

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 122 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

constitutional power, the High Court cannot ignore the law nor can it

override it.

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

enactments. The right to carry on trade or professoin also cannot be

curtailed. Only reasonable restriction can be imposed. To deny such rights

would militate against their rights under Article 14, read with Article 19

(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

226. As original or as appellate authority exercising power under

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 123 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

the respective enactments, quasi judicial officers were bound by the

provisions of the Act and the limitation under it, they have acted in

accordance with law. They cannot look beyond the limitations prescribed

under provisions of the Act. Therefore, no fault can be attributed to their

action.

227. This is a fit case for exercising the power under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioners by quashing the

impugned orders and to grant consequential relief to the petitioners. By

doing so, the Court is effectuating the object under the GST enactment of

levying and collecting just tax from every assessee who either supplies

goods or service. Legitimate Trade and Commerce by every supplier

should be allowed to be carried on subject to payment of tax and statutory

compliance. Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed.

228. These petitioners deserve a chance and therefore should be

allowed to revive their registration so that they can proceed to regularize

the defaults. The authorities acting under the Act may impose penalty

with the gravity of lapses committed by these petitioners by issuing

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 124 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

notice. 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.

229. In the light of the above discussion, these Writ Petitions are

allowed subject to the following conditions:-

i. The petitioners are directed to file their returns for the period prior to the cancellation of registration, if such returns have not been already filed, together with tax defaulted which has not been paid prior to cancellation along with interest for such belated payment of tax and fine and fee fixed for belated filing of returns for the defaulted period under the provisions of the Act, within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it has not been already paid.

ii. It is made clear that such payment of Tax, Interest, fine / fee and etc. shall not be allowed to be made or adjusted from and out of any Input Tax Credit which may be lying unutilized or unclaimed in the hands of these petitioners.

iii. If any Input Tax Credit has remained utilized, it

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 125 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

shall not be utilised until it is scrutinized and approved by an appropriate or a competent officer of the Department.

iv. Only such approved Input Tax Credit shall be allowed for being utilized thereafter for discharging future tax liability under the Act and Rule. v. The petitioners shall also pay GST and file the returns for the period subsequent to the cancellation of the registration by declaring the correct value of supplies and payment of GST shall also be in cash. vi. If any Input Tax Credit was earned, it shall be allowed to be utilised only after scrutinising and approving by the respondents or any other competent authority.

vii.The respondents may also impose such restrictions / limitation on petitioners as may be warranted to ensure that there is no undue passing of Input Tax Credit pending such exercise and to ensure that there is no violation or an attempt to do bill trading by taking advantage of this order.

viii.On payment of tax, penalty and uploading of returns, the registration shall stand revived forthwith.

ix. The respondents shall take suitable steps by instructing GST Network, New Delhi to make

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 126 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

suitable changes in the architecture of the GST Web portal to allow these petitioners to file their returns and to pay the tax/penalty/fine.

x. The above exercise shall be carried out by the respondents within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

xi. No cost.

xii.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

31.01.2022 Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes / No jen

To

1.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), Salem and Erode, Commercial Taxes Building, Pitchards Road, Salem – 7.

2.The Assistant Commissioner (Circle), Salem Bazaar.

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 127 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

C.SARAVANAN, J.

jen

Pre-Delivery Common Order in

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 128 of 129 W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

W.P.No.25048 of 2021 and etc. batch

31.01.2022

________________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 129 of 129