|
Case Title |
Ramakrishnan Mahalingam vs State Tax Officer (Circle) Kotagiri, Deputy Commissioner (ST) Coimbatore |
|
Court |
Madras High Court |
|
Honorable Judges |
Justice Anita Sumanth |
|
Citation |
2021 (4) GSTPanacea 26 HC Madras |
|
Judgement Date |
30-April-2021 |
|
Council for Petitioner |
Karthik Ranganathan |
|
Council for Respondent |
ANR. Jayaprathap |
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anita Sumanth has held that revocation of registration cannot to denied for the reason that incorrectly ITC has been availed.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Show cause notice was issued by 1st Respondent on 22.07.2019 for cancellation pf registration since the petitioner had not filed returns for a continuous period of six months . Thereafter, the registration came to be cancelled order dated 16.09.2019 & deficiency memo was issued by 2nd respondent date 05.10.2020 denying the Input Tax Credit’s for the period of 2017- 18 and 2018-19 and demanding the petitioner to pay the taxes mentioned therein.
Petitioner filed Writ Petition praying to Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records to quash the order dated 16.09.2019 & 05.10.2020 .Further direct the 1st and 2nd respondent to revoke the cancellation of GST registration and to grant Input Tax Credit’s as claimed in its returns against its output tax liability in accordance with the law.
The appeal of the petitioner to deficiency memo has been rejected on the ground that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed for various periods was ineligible. The appellate authority has instructed the petitioner to remit the amount due in order to have the appeal admitted.
COURT HELD
Considering the facts as recorded, held that the contention of the respondents herein that the revival of registration is conditional upon the petitioner satisfying tax dues and substantiating its claim of ITC, is misconceived. What is sought for by the petitioner is revocation/revival of registration only, and in the guise of considering the application for revocation, the authorities cannot embark upon the process of assessment.
Since all the returns has been filed also remitted late fees ,statisfy the conditions for grant of registration.
Thus 1st respondent to pass an order reviving the registration of the petitioner forthwith. Needless to say, the respondent is at liberty to take up matters of assessment thereafter, in accordance with law.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
As Taxpayer has filed monthly returns as well as annual returns for the periods January 2017-18 to September 2019-20 and for financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and has also remitted late fee for filing of belated returns. Thus, and these being the only conditions that are to be satisfied by the petitioner for grant of revocation of registration, I am of the view that the cancellation of the registration in this case is incorrect and improper.
The petition is revocation/revival of registration only, and in the guise of considering the application for revocation, the authorities cannot embark upon the process of assessment. An assessment would have to be made by the authority in terms of Section 73 or other applicable provision after following the procedure set out therein, and it is only in the course thereof that the officer may consider and decide questions of leviability of tax and claim of input tax credit.
Download PDF:
Ramakrishnan-Mahalingam
For Reference Visit:
Madras High Court