Allowed

Sri Ragavendra Iyangars Bakery v. The Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC8 Jul 2024WP/16557/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging cancellation of GST registration. Court revived registration subject to filing belated returns, payment of tax/interest/fee without utilizing ITC, and subsequent scrutiny of ITC by authorities. Cited Suguna Cutpiece precedent.

What did the court decide?

GST registration revived subject to filing returns, paying tax/interest/fee (not via ITC), and scrutiny of ITC.

Sri Ragavendra Iyangars Bakery Vs The Assistant… — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.16557 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.No.16557 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.18160 of 2024

¶7

Sri Ragavendra Iyangars Bakery, Represented by its Proprietor, K.P. Poornesh, No.10, Alandur Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. ... Petitioner -vs-

¶8

The Assistant Commissioner, Guindy Assessment Circle, Room No.709, 7th Floor, Integrated Building for commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Nandhanam, Chennai-600 035. ... Respondent PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the respondent order dated 27.09.2022 in Reference Number ZA330922234608G and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to revoke the cancellation of the GST registration of the petitioner's firm.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr. P.Suresh Babu For Respondent : Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, Govt. Adv. (T)

¶10

1/6

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶12

W.P.No.16557 of 2024

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner challenges an order of cancellation of GST registration dated 27.09.2022 and seeks revocation thereof. By asserting that the proprietor of the petitioner's firm could not file returns in time on account of ill-health, the present writ petition was filed.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would file the necessary GST returns in the event of the GST registration being restored. In support of restoration of registration, learned counsel relies upon the judgment of this Court in Suguna Cutpiece v. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST)(GST) and others, W.P.Nos.25048 of 2021 batch (Suguna Cutpiece) .

¶16

Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate, accepts

¶17

notice for the respondent and submits that directions along the lines of Suguna Cutpiece may be issued.

¶18

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following

¶19

directions:-

¶20

2/6

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P.No.16557 of 2024

¶23

i. The petitioner is directed to file returns for the period prior to the cancellation of registration, if not filed, together with tax dues along with interest thereon and the fee fixed for belated filing of returns within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

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 ( ITC ) which may be lying unutilized or unclaimed in the hands of the petitioner.

¶25

iii. If any ITC has remained unutilized, it shall not be utilised until it is scrutinized and approved by an appropriate or competent officer of the Department.

¶26

iv. Only such approved ITC shall be allowed to be utilized thereafter for discharging future tax liability under the Act and Rules.

¶27

v. The petitioner 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.

¶28

vi. If any ITC was earned, it shall be allowed to be utilised only after scrutinising and approving by the respondent or any other competent

¶29

3/6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.No.16557 of 2024

¶32

authority.

¶33

vii. On payment of tax, penalty and uploading of returns, the registration shall stand revived forthwith.

¶34

viii. The respondent shall take suitable steps by instructing GST Network, New Delhi to make suitable changes in the architecture of the GST Web portal to allow the petitioner to file the returns and to pay the tax / penalty / fine.

¶35

ix. The above exercise shall be carried out by the respondent within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36

The restoration of the GST registration is subject to and conditional upon fulfilling the above conditions.

¶37

The Writ Petition is disposed of on the above terms. There shall be

¶38

no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶39

08.07.2024

¶40

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation: Yes / No kj

¶41

4/6

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.No.16557 of 2024

¶44

¶45

The Assistant Commissioner, Guindy Assessment Circle, Room No.709, 7th Floor, Integrated Building for commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Nandhanam, Chennai-600 035.

¶46

5/6

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

W.P.No.16557 of 2024

¶49

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

¶50

¶51

W.P.No.16557 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.18160 of 2024

¶52

08.07.2024

¶53

6/6

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Sri Ragavendra Iyangars Bakery v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ragavendra Iyangars Bakery v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Susheel Jewellery Mart Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax

M/s. The Zero Brand Zones Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Controller of Patents and Designs

Shreeji Enterprise Vs the Commissioner of Customs

Tvl Rsm Traders Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer-2

M/S.S.M.Builders, Vs the Joint Commissionr

M/S.S.M.Builders, Vs the Joint Commissioner