Ms. Trans India Carco Carriers VS The Assistant Commissioner

In a recent series of writ petitions, the issue at hand revolves around the cancellation of registrations under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioners in these cases have challenged the orders that led to the cancellation of their registrations. This matter has already been deliberated upon in a previous batch of writ petitions, with a decision reached on August 17, 2022. In that decision, the court addressed similar concerns raised by the petitioners.

In a previous case, I addressed a similar issue to the one presented in the current batch of writ petitions. The petitioners in both instances challenged orders that revoked their registrations under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Despite various opportunities provided to them following the cancellation of their registrations, such as through Amnesty Schemes, the petitioners failed to take necessary steps to restore their registrations.

The Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 includes provisions for the revocation of cancellation or the restoration of registrations. One such avenue is provided under Section 30 of the Act, which offers a remedy that must be pursued within thirty days from the date of the cancellation order. However, none of the petitioners in the current batch of cases have taken advantage of this provision by filing an application under Section 30.

The second remedy discussed pertains to the option of filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which must be pursued within a timeframe of three months following the receipt of the cancellation order by the dealer. It’s noteworthy that exceptions exist for certain petitioners, specifically those involved in WP.Nos.18698, 17850, 14931, 14369, and 18306 of 2022.

The second remedy available to dealers following the cancellation of their orders involves filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. This avenue must be pursued within three months from the date the cancellation order is communicated to the dealer. However, there are exceptions noted among certain petitioners. Specifically, those involved in WP.Nos.18698, 17850, 14931, 14369, and 18306 of 2022.

In the case of WP.No.14931 of 2022, the petitioner is reported to have pursued the appellate remedy, albeit with a significant delay of one year and eight days. Despite the delay, the appeal was accompanied by returns covering a six-month period, along with the admitted tax.

Similarly, in WP.No.17850 of 2022, the petitioner experienced a substantial delay of two years, three months, and three days. Nevertheless, an appeal was submitted along with returns spanning six months, including the admitted tax.

The second recourse available to dealers facing cancellation orders is to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within three months of receiving the cancellation communication. Exceptions to this timeline were noted in several petitions, namely WP.Nos.18698, 17850, 14931, 14369, and 18306 of 2022. Notably, the petitioner in WP.No.14931 of 2022 pursued the appellate remedy, albeit tardily, with a delay of one year and eight days. Their appeal included returns spanning six months with admitted tax liabilities. In the instance of the petitioner in WP.No.17850 of 2022, the delay extended to two years, three months, and three days. Similarly, this appeal was accompanied by returns for a six-month period, including admitted tax. In the case of the petitioner in WP.No.18698 of 2022, the delay amounted to 165 days, with the appeal including returns for six months alongside admitted tax amounts. Despite these efforts, all appeals were dismissed by the appellate authority, prompting the filing of the present writ petitions.

Several petitioners, except for those listed, were subject to cancellation orders related to their dealerships. These orders could be appealed within three months of communication. Among the exceptions, the petitioner in WP.No.14931 of 2022 filed an appeal, albeit belatedly by over a year. Similarly, the petitioner in WP.No.17850 of 2022 experienced a delay of two years, three months, and three days before filing an appeal. In WP.No.18698 of 2022, the petitioner faced a delay of 165 days. Despite accompanying their appeals with returns for six months and the admitted tax, all these appeals were rejected by the appellate authority, leading to the filing of present writ petitions.

In the case of WP.No.14369 of 2022, the cancellation order was issued prematurely, as the default in filing returns was only for one month, contrary to statutory provisions. Despite this, the petitioner filed returns for the month of September 2020 along with the admitted tax for both months, challenging the premature cancellation order.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: