The cancellation of the registration in this case is incorrect and improper.
Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017- Revocation of Cancellation of Registration – The petitioner submitted that a SCN was issued by the first respondent on 22.07.2019 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the registration not be cancelled, since the petitioner had not filed returns for a continuous period of six months. Thereafter, the registration came to be cancelled on 16.09.2019. Against the order of cancellation, the Act provides for an application for revocation of order of cancellation in terms of Section 30. Two applications have been filed by the petitioner under Section 30, the first one rejected by an order dated 24.07.2020 referring to non-compliance of the petitioner to notice issued by the assessing officer, and the second dated 09.09.2020, rejected on 12.09.2020, referring to outstanding interest on belated payment of tax dues and for allegedly wrongful claim of ITC. The contention of the respondents that the revival of registration is conditional upon the petitioner satisfying tax dues and substantiating its claim of ITC, is misconceived. The court observed that the petitioner 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.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the Petition and held that the cancellation of the registration is incorrect and improper. Directed the first respondent to pass an order reviving the registration of the petitioner.
The cancellation of the registration in this case is incorrect and improper.
Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017- Revocation of Cancellation of Registration – The petitioner submitted that a SCN was issued by the first respondent on 22.07.2019 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the registration not be cancelled, since the petitioner had not filed returns for a continuous period of six months. Thereafter, the registration came to be cancelled on 16.09.2019. Against the order of cancellation, the Act provides for an application for revocation of order of cancellation in terms of Section 30. Two applications have been filed by the petitioner under Section 30, the first one rejected by an order dated 24.07.2020 referring to non-compliance of the petitioner to notice issued by the assessing officer, and the second dated 09.09.2020, rejected on 12.09.2020, referring to outstanding interest on belated payment of tax dues and for allegedly wrongful claim of ITC. The contention of the respondents that the revival of registration is conditional upon the petitioner satisfying tax dues and substantiating its claim of ITC, is misconceived. The court observed that the petitioner 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.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the Petition and held that the cancellation of the registration is incorrect and improper. Directed the first respondent to pass an order reviving the registration of the petitioner.