Loafers Corner Cafe VS  Union Of India

The petitioner, a partnership firm, has taken legal action against the respondent due to delays in canceling an earlier GST registration and issuing a new one. Initially registered for normal tax payment, the petitioner applied for a fresh registration on 19.06.2018 to switch to a compounded tax payment scheme. Although the new registration was eventually granted, there was a gap between application and approval. During this period, the petitioner couldn’t upload returns under the composition scheme as the system recognized only the earlier registration. Consequently, the petitioner requests the court to direct the respondents to amend the portal to allow filing returns for specific periods without imposing late fees or additional charges due to delayed uploading.

The petitioner, a partnership firm, has taken legal action against the respondent due to delays in cancelling its previous registration under the GST Act and granting a new one. Originally registered for normal tax payment, the petitioner applied for a fresh registration on 19.06.2018 to opt for the compounded tax scheme. Although the new registration was eventually granted, the delay between the application and approval led to issues with filing returns, as the system only recognized the old registration. Consequently, the petitioner seeks a court order directing the respondents to update the portal, allowing them to file returns from October 2018 to March 2020 without incurring late fees or charges.

The respondent, in a statement, acknowledges the delay in approving the cancellation application, attributing it to processing delays within their system. While the cancellation application was filed on 22.05.2018, it was only approved on 18.05.2019, causing further complications for the petitioner.

The petitioner, a partnership firm, is aggrieved by the delay caused by the respondent in cancelling its earlier GST registration and granting a new one. Initially registered under normal tax payment, the petitioner applied for a new registration on 19.06.2018 to opt for a compounded tax scheme. Despite subsequent approval, the delay between application and approval caused issues with filing returns as the system only recognized the old registration. The petitioner seeks a court order directing the respondents to rectify the portal for filing returns from October 2018 to March 2020 without late fees. The respondent admits delay in processing the cancellation application, attributing it to system delays. Despite this, the court notes the petitioner’s timely application for cancellation and new registration, stating that delay in processing should not deprive the petitioner of the compounded scheme benefits.

The petitioner, a partnership firm, has taken legal action against the delay caused by the respondent in canceling its previous registration and issuing a new one under the GST Act. The petitioner initially registered for tax payment on a normal basis but later applied for a fresh registration on 19.06.2018 to opt for a compounded tax payment scheme. Although the new registration was eventually granted, there was a delay between the application and its approval. During this period, the petitioner couldn’t upload returns under the compounded scheme because the system only recognized the old registration. Consequently, the petitioner seeks a court directive for the respondents to modify the portal, allowing the filing of returns from October 2018 to March 2020 without imposing late fees or additional charges.

The respondent acknowledges the delay in processing the cancellation application, attributing it to system issues, despite the petitioner filing for cancellation on 22.05.2018. However, the court emphasizes that the delay in processing applications shouldn’t deprive the petitioner of the benefits they sought through the new registration application. The court rules in favor of the petitioner, instructing the respondents to adjust the portal to facilitate return filing for the specified period without penalizing the petitioner for the respondent’s delay.

The petitioner, a partnership firm, has approached the court due to delays caused by the respondent in cancelling their earlier GST registration and granting a new one. The petitioner originally opted for normal tax payment but later applied for a new registration to opt for the compounded scheme. Although the new registration was eventually granted, the delay between application and approval prevented the petitioner from filing returns under the compounded scheme. The court acknowledges that the delay in processing by the respondent’s system caused this issue but rules in favor of the petitioner, stating that the delay shouldn’t deprive them of the benefits they applied for. The court directs the respondents to make necessary portal changes to allow the petitioner to file returns without late fees, within one month of the judgment. The petitioner must provide a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the respondents for further action.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit
Karela High Court 

Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law: