Kerala High Court: A.M. Badar, J., dismissed the petition challenging cancellation of CGST registration observing that the petitioner had remedy of challenging cancellation of registration by filing an appeal which he had not availed. The Bench observed,

“The petitioner was sleeping over its right after cancellation of its registration. There is undue delay even in filing an application for revocation of registration so also even in approaching this Court.”

The grievance of the petitioner was that his registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2007 was cancelled on account of non-filing of the return for a continuous period of six months. He filed an application for revocation of cancellation, but because of defect in the software maintained by the respondents, the respondents did not revoke the cancellation of registration. It was further urged that the respondents had decided to grant benefit of amnesty scheme to the tax payers under the CGST Act enabling them to furnish the returns up to 31-08-2021 by waiving fees and other penalties under the CGST Act. But because of cancellation of registration, he was not in a position to obtain benefit of that scheme.

Noticing that the registration of the petitioner came to be cancelled after issuing show-cause notice, the Bench stated that the reason for cancellation was suo motu cancellation due to non-filing of returns. The petitioner-Company had filed an application for revocation of cancellation of registration but the application was also rejected as it was filed after 90 days of the order cancelling registration. Observing that the petitioner had remedy of challenging cancellation of registration by filing an appeal which he had not availed, and the cancellation of registration attained finality, the Bench held that the petitioner could not be heard to say that he is willing to avail the benefits of the amnesty scheme framed by the Government and the registration which was cancelled needs to be revoked.

Opining that the petitioner was sleeping over his right after cancellation of its registration, the Bench dismissed the petitioner for being devoid of merit.[Powernet India (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 3212, decided on 25-08-2021]

Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Appearance by:

For the Petitioner: Advocate Latheesh Sebastian

For Union of India: S.C. Sreelal.N. Warrier and A.S.G.I P.Vijaya Kumar

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.