The petitioner in this case had their GST registration canceled because they failed to file returns continuously for a period of six months, despite receiving a notice from the authorities. The petitioner argued that since they had subsequently paid the outstanding taxes along with interest, their registration should be reinstated. However, the court clarified that the provisions governing the cancellation of registration and the payment of taxes with interest are distinct and serve different purposes under the GST Act. Cancellation of registration is a consequence of prolonged non-compliance with return filing requirements, while interest is imposed for delayed tax payments.
The court emphasized that there was no contradiction between these provisions and that the
petitioner had an alternative remedy available to them. They should have availed themselves
of this remedy within the prescribed time frame. Given that the petitioner had not filed returns
for six consecutive months, the authority had no choice but to cancel their registration. As a
result, the court dismissed the petition. However, the court made it clear that if the petitioner
chose to apply for fresh registration, their application would be considered in accordance
with the law.
Additionally, the court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the GST portal was not in
compliance with the law, stating that the software was functional and widely used across the
country. This decision underscores the importance of timely compliance with GST return filing
requirements and the need to adhere to the statutory provisions for seeking remedies in such
cases.
| SW Point of View: The petitioner’s GST registration was canceled due to their failure to file returns continuously for six months, even after receiving a notice from authorities. The petitioner argued that paying the outstanding taxes with interest should reinstate their registration, but the court clarified that registration cancellation and tax payment with interest are separate issues under the GST Act. The court emphasized that there was no contradiction in these provisions and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy. They should have used this remedy within the prescribed time frame. Since the petitioner hadn’t filed returns for six consecutive months, the authority had to cancel their registration, leading to the court’s dismissal of the petition. The court also rejected the claim that the GST portal wasn’t compliant, stating it was functional and widely used. This decision highlights the importance of timely compliance with GST return filing and adhering to statutory remedies. |
Source: 2023 (9) TMI 1002 – KERELA HIGH COURT
