w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. Phoenix Rubbers, Palakkad, Represented By Sakkeer Hussain, Managing Partner v/s The Commercial Tax Officer, State GST Department, Palakkad & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- I. B. COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101MH2007PTC167888

Company & Directors' Information:- R. M. COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2007PTC119841

Company & Directors' Information:- G L COMMERCIAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74130DL1985PLC020182

Company & Directors' Information:- T. R. COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120OR2008PTC010275

Company & Directors' Information:- PHOENIX CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200PN2010PLC137104

Company & Directors' Information:- H C COMMERCIAL LTD [Active] CIN = U72300WB1970PLC027736

Company & Directors' Information:- M B COMMERCIAL CO LTD [Active] CIN = L51909WB1960PLC024849

Company & Directors' Information:- M B COMMERCIAL CO LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1960PLC024849

Company & Directors' Information:- A R COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17210WB2011PTC170257

Company & Directors' Information:- V & G COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH2011PTC213338

Company & Directors' Information:- H G COMMERCIAL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U52190WB1991PTC050743

Company & Directors' Information:- S B P COMMERCIAL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51101AS1996PTC004692

Company & Directors' Information:- R K COMMERCIAL LTD [Active] CIN = L65993WB1982PLC035298

Company & Directors' Information:- L R COMMERCIAL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70102WB1995PTC073665

Company & Directors' Information:- S S RUBBERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25110TG1995PTC021755

Company & Directors' Information:- J K COMMERCIAL CORPN LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65923UP1943PLC001188

Company & Directors' Information:- M M K COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100WB2008PTC128229

Company & Directors' Information:- M G B COMMERCIAL PVT LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U74950WB1993PTC060732

Company & Directors' Information:- V A M COMMERCIAL CO LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1983PLC036163

Company & Directors' Information:- R C COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120UP1992PTC014057

Company & Directors' Information:- D G COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U52100AS2007PTC008457

Company & Directors' Information:- J B COMMERCIAL CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1980PTC033099

Company & Directors' Information:- V & S COMMERCIAL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909CT2006PTC001660

Company & Directors' Information:- PHOENIX INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50401AS2011PTC010680

Company & Directors' Information:- A-Z COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109DL1993PTC053697

Company & Directors' Information:- P J COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52190WB2009PTC140508

Company & Directors' Information:- P M COMMERCIAL CO LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1982PLC035383

Company & Directors' Information:- J M COMMERCIAL & CO LTD [Converted to LLP] CIN = U67120DL1982PLC242476

Company & Directors' Information:- S P COMMERCIAL CO LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201WB1982PLC035237

Company & Directors' Information:- B B COMMERCIAL LTD [Active] CIN = L51909WB1980PLC033130

Company & Directors' Information:- T T COMMERCIAL CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70101WB1995PTC075032

Company & Directors' Information:- W & F COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2004PTC098442

Company & Directors' Information:- N P P COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2004PTC127585

Company & Directors' Information:- A. T. COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2008PTC127621

Company & Directors' Information:- U S COMMERCIAL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51502WB1992PTC057239

Company & Directors' Information:- A D COMMERCIAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109AS1999PTC005668

Company & Directors' Information:- I D COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB1980PTC032739

Company & Directors' Information:- S G COMMERCIAL CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15312WB1955PTC022120

Company & Directors' Information:- A & M COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC106023

Company & Directors' Information:- R V RUBBERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U25199DL1996PTC077823

Company & Directors' Information:- S P N COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52390WB2010PTC140826

Company & Directors' Information:- J. D. COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2009PTC188147

Company & Directors' Information:- J. D. COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34100DL2009PTC188147

Company & Directors' Information:- B E & I COMMERCIAL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U24231WB1986PTC040618

Company & Directors' Information:- B COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60230OR2011PTC014188

Company & Directors' Information:- R A RUBBERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25191UP1993PTC015157

Company & Directors' Information:- M G COMMERCIAL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109WB1960PTC024564

Company & Directors' Information:- K P COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200GJ1999PTC036317

Company & Directors' Information:- S B P RUBBERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC034936

Company & Directors' Information:- S. N .RUBBERS (INDIA) P LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U25199TN1996PTC034042

Company & Directors' Information:- GST PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27104MH2002PTC136410

Company & Directors' Information:- B S COMMERCIAL COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101WB1985PTC038889

Company & Directors' Information:- A S COMMERCIAL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1989PTC047016

Company & Directors' Information:- S N H P COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB2005PTC101704

Company & Directors' Information:- H M COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52599WB2007PTC112975

Company & Directors' Information:- S. V. COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2010PTC145115

Company & Directors' Information:- R M RUBBERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U25199PB1993PTC014052

Company & Directors' Information:- R A RUBBERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U25199PB1990PTC010453

Company & Directors' Information:- S R COMMERCIAL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27209WB1987PTC041901

Company & Directors' Information:- G R COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2000PTC108839

Company & Directors' Information:- S H RUBBERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U25190KL2010PTC026810

Company & Directors' Information:- J. S. RUBBERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25203DL2005PTC135209

Company & Directors' Information:- T J COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51434WB2001PTC093979

Company & Directors' Information:- A S J COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15497DL2012PTC230407

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND T RUBBERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U25111TN1993PTC024871

Company & Directors' Information:- S B COMMERCIAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1982PTC028334

Company & Directors' Information:- P P COMMERCIAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1986PTC041237

Company & Directors' Information:- B V COMMERCIAL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109WB2006PTC108218

Company & Directors' Information:- D S COMMERCIAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U26101WB1958PTC023936

Company & Directors' Information:- S R M COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2009PTC137093

Company & Directors' Information:- H T COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109MH2010PTC209413

Company & Directors' Information:- B C COMMERCIAL CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109WB1987PTC043138

Company & Directors' Information:- M V COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101WB2010PTC150651

Company & Directors' Information:- K T RUBBERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U25203DL2008PTC184980

Company & Directors' Information:- U B COMMERCIAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51229WB1996PTC077559

    WP(C). No. 35159 of 2019 (T)

    Decided On, 03 February 2020

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

    For the Petitioner: Harisankar V. Menon, Meera V. Menon, K. Krishna, Advocates. For the Respondents: R3-R4, Sreelal N. Warrier, SC, Thushara James, Govt. Pleader.



Judgment Text


1. The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

“(i) To quash Ext.P-3 order issued by 1st respondent by the issue of a writ of certiorari or such other writ or order or direction.

(ii) To grant the petitioner such other incidental reliefs including the cost of these proceedings.”

2. Heard Sri.Harisankar V.Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Sreelal N.Warrier, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes, Government of India, appearing for additional respondents 3 & 4, and Dr.Thushara James, learned Government Pleader appearing for R-1 & R-2.

3. The factual aspects stated in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:-

That the petitioner is an assessee of goods and services tax on the roll of 4th respondent. That on account of financial crisis, the petitioner firm defaulted filing of returns from May, 2019 onwards. Thereupon, the 4th respondent had issued Ext.P-1 notice dated 13.1.2019 to the petitioner proposing to cancel the registration under Sec. 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act on account of the alleged non filing of the returns for a continuous six months' period. Thereafter, the 4th respondent has passed the impugned Ext.P-3 order ordering the cancellation of registration of the petitioner firm under Sec. 29(2) (c) of the CGST Act. The petitioner would point out that the abovesaid provision contained in Sec. 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act provides cancellation of the registration only if there is continuous default of six months in filing the returns. The main contention urged by Sri.Harisankar V.Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is to the effect that though the 4th respondent found that as on the date of Ext.P-1 notice dated 13.11.2019 there were six months' continuous default on the part of the petitioner, that indeed there was only 5 months' continuous default and not the mandatory six months' continuous default in filing the returns as envisaged in Sec. 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and ultra vires and is liable to be interdicted by this Court. Further it is pointedly pointed out that the impugned Ext.P-3 order directing cancellation of the registration of the petitioner was rendered on 10.12.2019 and that on 10.12.2019, the petitioner had filed returns for the month of May, 2019 as can be seen from Ext.P-2 document.

4. Sec. 29(2) of the CGST Act provides as follows:

“Sec.29: Cancellation of registration.--(1)....

xxx xxx xxx

(2) The proper officer may cancel the registration of a person from such date, including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit, where,--

(a) a registered person has contravened such provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder as may be prescribed; or

(b) a person paying tax under Section 10 has not furnished returns for three consecutive tax periods; or

(c) any registered person, other than a person specified in Clause (b), has not furnished returns for a continuous period of six months; or

(d) any person who has taken voluntary registration under sub-section (3) of Section 25 has not commenced business within six months from the date of registration; or

(e) registration has been obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts:

Provided that the proper officer shall not cancel the registration without giving the person an opportunity of being heard.”

Rule 22 of the CGST Rules provides as follows:

“Rule 22. Cancellation of registration.-(1) Where the proper officer has reasons to believe that the registration of a person is liable to be cancelled under section 29, he shall issue a notice to such person in FORM GST REG-17,requiring him to show cause, within a period of seven working days from the date of the service of such notice, as to why his registration shall not be cancelled.

(2) The reply to the show cause notice issued under sub-rule (1) shall be furnished in FORM REG–18 within the period specified in the said subrule.

(3) Where a person who has submitted an application for cancellation of his registration is no longer liable to be registered or his registration is liable to be cancelled, the proper officer shall issue an order in FORM GST REG-19, within a period of thirty days from the date of application submitted under [sub-rule (1) of] 16 rule 20 or, as the case may be, the date of the reply to the show cause issued under sub-rule (1), cancel the registration, with effect from a date to be determined by him and notify the taxable person, directing him to pay arrears of any tax, interest or penalty including the amount liable to be paid under sub-section (5) of section 29.

(4) Where the reply furnished under sub-rule (2) is found to be satisfactory, the proper officer shall drop the proceedings and pass an order in FORM GST REG –20:

Provided that where the person instead of replying to the notice served under subrule (1) for contravention of the provisions contained in clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 29, furnishes all the pending returns and makes full payment of the tax dues along with applicable interest and late fee, the proper officer shall drop the proceedings and pass an order in FORM GST-REG 20

(5) The provisions of sub-rule (3) shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the legal heirs of a deceased proprietor, as if the application had been submitted by the proprietor himself.”

Further, Sec. 39 of the CGST Act stipulates as follows:

“Sec.39: Furnishing of returns.-- (1) Every registered person, other than an Input Service Distributor or a non-resident taxable person or a person paying tax under the provisions of Section 10 or Section 51 or Section 52 shall, for every calendar month or part thereof, furnish, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, a return, electronically, of inward and outward supplies of goods or services or both, input tax credit availed, tax payable, tax paid and such other particulars as may be prescribed.

(2) A registered person paying tax under the provisions of Section 10 shall, for each quarter or part thereof, furnish, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, a return, electronically, of turnover in the State or Union territory, inward supplies of goods or services or both, tax payable and tax paid within eighteen days after the end of such quarter.

(3) Every registered person required to deduct tax at source under the provisions of Section 51 shall furnish, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, a return, electronically, for the month in which such deductions have been made within ten days after the end of such month.

(4) Every taxable person registered as an Input Service Distributor shall, for every calendar month or part thereof, furnish, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, a return, electronically, within thirteen days after the end of such month.

(5) Every registered non-resident taxable person shall, for every calendar month or part thereof, furnish, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, a return, electronically, within twenty days after the end of a calendar month or within seven days after the last day of the period of registration specified under sub-section (1) of Section 27, whichever is earlier.

(6) The Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, by notification, extend the time limit for furnishing the returns under this section for such class of registered persons as may be specified therein: Provided that any extension of time limit notified by the Commissioner of State tax or Union territory tax shall be deemed to be notified by the Commissioner.

(7) Every registered person, who is required to furnish a return under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) or sub-section (5), shall pay to the Government the tax due as per such return not later than the last date on which he is required to furnish such return.

(8) Every registered person who is required to furnish a return under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall furnish a return for every tax period whether or not any supplies of goods or services or both have been made during such tax period.

(9) Subject to the provisions of Sections 37 and 38, if any registered person after furnishing a return under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) discovers any omission or incorrect particulars therein, other than as a result of scrutiny, audit, inspection or enforcement activity by the tax authorities, he shall rectify such omission or incorrect particulars in the return to be furnished for the month or quarter during which such omission or incorrect particulars are noticed, subject to payment of interest under this Act:

Provided that no such rectification of any omission or incorrect particulars shall be allowed after the due date for furnishing of return for the month of September or second quarter following the end of the financial year, or the actual date of furnishing of relevant annual return, whichever is earlier.

(10) A registered person shall not be allowed to furnish a return for a tax period if the return for any of the previous tax periods has not been furnished by him.” Rule 61 of the CGST Rules, provides as follows:

“Rule 61: Form and manner of submission of monthly return.- (1) Every registered person other than a person referred to in Section 14 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Central Act 13 of 2017) or an Input Service Distributor or a non-resident taxable person or a person paying tax under Section 10 or Section 51 or, as the case may be, under Section 52 shall furnish a return specified under subsection (1) of Section 39 in FORM GSTR-3 electronically through the common portal either directly or through a Facilitation Centre notified by the Commissioner.

(2) Part A of the return under sub-rule (1) shall be electronically generated on the basis of information furnished through FORM GSTR-1, FORM GSTR-2 and based on other liabilities of preceding tax periods.

(3) Every registered person furnishing the return under sub-rule (1) shall, subject to the provisions of Section 49, discharge his liability towards tax, interest, penalty, fees or any other amount payable under the Act or the provisions of this Chapter by debiting the electronic cash ledger or electronic credit ledger and include the details in Part B of the return in FORM GSTR-3.

(4) A registered person, claiming refund of any balance in the electronic cash ledger in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 49, may claim such refund in Part B of the return in FORM GSTR-3 and such return shall be deemed to be an application filed under Section 54.

(5) Where the time limit for furnishing of details in FORM GSTR-1 under Section 37 and in FORM GSTR-2 under Section 38 has been extended and the circumstances so warrant, return in FORM GSTR-3B, in lieu of FORM GSTR-3, may be furnished in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be notified by the Commissioner.

(6) Where a return in FORM GSTR-3B has been furnished, after the due date for furnishing of details in FORM GSTR-2—

(a) Part A of the return in FORM GSTR-3 shall be electronically generated on the basis of information furnished through FORM GSTR-1, FORM GSTR-2 and based on other liabilities of preceding tax periods and PART B of the said return shall be electronically generated on the basis of the return in FORM GSTR-3B furnished in respect of the tax period;

(b) the registered person shall modify Part B of the return in FORM GSTR-3 based on the discrepancies, if any, between the return in FORM GSTR-3B and the return in FORM GSTR-3 and discharge his tax and other liabilities, if any;

(c) where the amount of input tax credit in FORM GSTR-3 exceeds the amount of input tax credit in terms of FORM GSTR-3B, the additional amount shall be credited to the electronic credit ledger of the registered person.”

Further, it has to be noted that Sec. 29(2) of the CGST stipulates as follows:

“Sec. 29: Cancellation of registration.—

(1)...

(2) The proper officer may cancel the registration of a person from such date, including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit, where,--

(a) a registered person has contravened such provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder as may be prescribed; or

(b) a person paying tax under Section 10 has not furnished returns for three consecutive tax periods; or

(c) any registered person, other than a person specified in Clause (b), has not furnished returns for a continuous period of six months; or

(d) any person who has taken voluntary registration under sub-section (3) of Section 25 has not commenced business within six months from the date of registration; or

(e) registration has been obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts:

Provided that the proper officer shall not cancel the registration without giving the person an opportunity of being heard.

5. A combined reading of these provisions would clearly indicate that an assessee like the petitioner is bound to file return for the month concerned on or before the 20th of the succeeding month concerned. Further a reading of Sec. 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act would also disclose that it is mandated by the Legislature that if there is continuous six months' default on the part of the assessee in filing returns, then the competent authority can invoke the power under Sec. 29(2)(c) of the said Act to cancel the registration. In the instant case, Ext.P-5 is the tabular statement given by the petitioner as directed by this Court showing all the details of the tax paid and dates on which the respective monthly returns filed for the months from July, 2017 to July, 2019.

6. The respondents were directed by this Court to ascertain the factual correctness of the details in Ext.P-5 and more particularly as to whether the petitioner had indeed filed the return for the month of May, 2019 on 10.12.2019 as shown in Ext.P-2 series of documents.

7. The respondents do not have any serious dispute about the correctness of the details in Ext.P-5 tabular statement, more particularly regarding the returns filed for the relevant months. Both sides do not have any dispute that as on the date of issuance of Ext.P-1 show cause notice on 13.11.2019, there was indeed six months' continuous default on the part of the petitioner in filing the returns. Therefore the the basic jurisdictional fact for issuing a show cause notice in the nature of Ext.P-1 has been correctly and properly done by the 4th respondent. It appears that the petitioner has filed the return for the month of May, 2019, on 10.12.2019 at 11.30 a.m. as can be seen from Ext.P-2 series of documents, when the 4th respondent has passed Ext.P-3 cancellation order on the same date (10.12.2019). True as the filing of the return is through on-line process, the 4th respondent cannot be blamed for not knowing as on 10.12.2019 (date of issuance of Ext.P-3 order) that the petitioner has filed returns for the month of May, 2019 on the same day (10.12.2019). Moreover, the petitioner has also not informed the 4th respondent either on 10.12.2019 or immediately thereafter about the crucial fact that the petitioner has indeed filed the returns for the month of May, 2019 on 10.12.2019. But the fact of the matter is that since the petitioner had indeed filed returns for the month of May, 2019 on 10.12.2019 as per Ext.P-2, it goes beyond any doubt that as on the date of issuance of Ext.P-3 order dated 10.12.2019, the petitioner had only 5 months' continuous default and not the mandatory 6 months' continuous default, which is the essential jurisdictional fact required for invoking the power of cancellation of the registration under Sec. 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act. A perusal of the factual aspects in this case will disclose that the last return filed by the petitioner as per Ext.P-5 tabular statement is for the month of July, 2019 and the said return for that month was filed on 2.1.2020. For the months of June, 2019 and May, 2019, the petitioner has filed returns on 18.12.2019 and 10.12.2019 respectively. As on 10.12.2019, (date of issuance of Ext.P-3 order) the petitioner has not filed returns for the months October, 2019, September 2019, August, 2019, July 2019 and June 2019. In this connection it is to be noted that the petitioner had subsequently filed return for the month of July, 2019 and June, 2019 on 2.1.2020 and 18.12.2019 respectively, which is after the date of issuance of Ext.P-3 datd 10.12.2019. Therefore, the petitioner has filed returns for the month of May, 2019 on 10.12.2019, he has continuous default of 5 months, ie. for the months from October, 2019 to June 2019 (5 months). For the month of November, 2019, the outer time limit for the petitioner for filing return is upto 20.12.2019 and for the month of December, 2019, the outer time in that regard is upto 20th January, 2020. Therefore, there does not appear to be any dispute on this crucial factual aspect. Therefore as on the date of the issuance of Ext.P-3 order dated 10.12.2019, the petitioner's continuous default in not filing return is only 5 continuous months and not 6 continuous months.

8. Sri.Sreelal N.Warrier, the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes, Government of India, appearing for respondents 2 and 4 was requested to get factual instructions on this aspect. Today, when the matter has been taken up for consideration, it is pointed out that the petitioner has filed returns for the month of May, 2019 on 10.12.2019 as per Ext.P-2 series and further that the petitioner has never informed the 4th respondent on 10.12.2019 about the factum of filing of the return for the month of May, 2019 on 10.12.2019.

9. This Court would certainly say that the 4th respondent cannot be faulted for having passed an order in the nature of Ext.P-3 on 10.12.2019, because he was totally unaware that the petitioner would indeed file return for the month of May, 2019 on 10.12.2019, etc.

10. Rule 22 of the CGST Act reads as follows:

“Sec.22: Persons liable for registration.—

(1) Every supplier shall be liable to be registered under this Act in the State or Union territory, other than special category States, from where he makes a taxable supply of goods or services or both, if his aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds twenty lakh rupees: Provided that where such person makes taxable supplies of goods or services or both from any of the special category States, he shall be liable to be registered if his aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds ten lakh rupees.

(2) Every person who, on the day immediately preceding the appointed day, is registered or holds a licence under an existing law, shall be liable to be registered under this Act with effect from the appointed day.

(3) Where a business carried on by a taxable person registered under this Act is transferred, whether on account of succession or otherwise, to another person as a going concern, the transferee or the successor, as the case may be, shall be liable to be registered with effect from the date of such transfer or succession.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (3), in a case of transfer pursuant to sanction of a scheme or an arrangement for amalgamation or, as the case may be, demerger of two or more companies pursuant to an order of a High Court, Tribunal or otherwise, the transferee shall be liable to be registered, with effect from the date on which the Registrar of Companies issues a certificate of incorporation giving effect to such order of the High Court or Tribunal. Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section,--

(i) the expression "aggregate turnover" shall include all supplies made by the taxable person, whether on his own account or made on behalf of all his principals;

(ii) the supply of goods, after completion of job work, by a registered job worker shall b

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

e treated as the supply of goods by the principal referred to in Section 143, and the value of such goods shall not be included in the aggregate turnover of the registered job worker; (iii) the expression "special category States" shall mean the States as specified in sub-clause (g) of Clause (4) of Article 279A of the Constitution.” 11. Sec. 29(2)(c) mandates that power for the cancellation of registration in a case where there is continuous six months' default on the part of the assessee in filing the returns. Since the competent official is obliged to issue a notice in the nature of Ext.P-1 before he passes final orders, it goes without saying that the requirement of 6 months' continuous period should be fulfilled both at the time of issuance of the abovesaid notice in terms of the proviso to Sec. 29(2) of the CGST Act read with Rule 22 of the CGST Act, but also at the stage of passing the final order cancelling the registration as per Sec. 29(2)(c). In the instant case, the jurisdictional fact regarding the six months' continuous default on the part of the assessee is certainly fulfilled at the time of issuance of Ext.P-1 show cause notice dated 13.11.2019. Whereas, the said vital requirement of jurisdictional fact is non-existent as on the date of issuance of the impugned Ext.P-3 cancellation order dated 10.12.2019. If that be so, it is only to be held that the impugned order as per Ext.P-3 is illegal and ultra vires and is liable to be interdicted by this Court. Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned Ext.P-3 order will stand quashed. 12. It is made clear that this Court has only decided the limited aspect regarding the jurisdictional fact required for invoking the power under Sec. 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act and in case the petitioner is liable for any of the manner for the abovesaid Act, or in case the petitioner after the issuance of Ext.P-3 has subsequently defaulted six months' continuous period in filing returns, etc. then the competent officer concerned is certainly at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, but certainly after compliance of the basic requirements of fairness and natural justice. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

05-10-2020 N. Ulagaraj Versus Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
17-08-2020 L. Subramanian Versus The Principal Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes & Registration (A1) Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
14-08-2020 P.P. Suresh Kumar, Managing Director, Kerala Communications Cable Ltd., Kochi & Another Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
05-08-2020 Doosan Infracore India Private Limited, Rep., by N. Krishnakumar Versus The Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-08-2020 The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissinerate, Chennai Versus M/s. Saksoft Ltd., Perungudi, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-08-2020 Lakshmamma & Another Versus Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Authorized Officer Dani Corporate Park, Mumbai & Others High Court of Karnataka
30-07-2020 M/s. Ambady Enterprises, Chovva, Kannur, Represented by Authorised Signatory Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government, Department of Commercial Taxes, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
13-07-2020 M/s. Vismaya Advertising, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Manager Sunil S. Menon & Another Versus The Intelligence Officer (IB), Department of Commercial Taxes, Mattancherry at Aluva & Others High Court of Kerala
03-07-2020 Subhash Joshi & Another Versus Director General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
26-06-2020 U. Manikandan, Mani Poultry Farm, Annamooli, Palakkad Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, State GST Department, Special Circle, Palakkad & Another High Court of Kerala
24-06-2020 The Renaissance, Palarivattom, Represented by P.N. Krishnadas, Managing Partner, Residing at Palarivattom, Kochi Versus Commercial Tax Officer (Luxury Tax) Class Towers, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
17-06-2020 Ministry of Railways Through Divisional Commercial Manager Versus V. Vijay Kumar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-06-2020 M/s. E.V. Mathai & Sons, Represented by Its Managing Partner, Rubber Dealer, Kothamangalam Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
05-06-2020 The Assistant Commissioner (Kvat), Commercial Taxes, Special Circle, Kottayam & Others Versus M/s. Kunnathukalathil Jewellers, Changanassery, Represented by Its Managing Partner K.V. Viswanathan High Court of Kerala
05-06-2020 A.G. Chandrasekar Versus The State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Commercial Crime Investigation Wing CID, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 Birin Spinning Mills Limited, Rep its Director D. Rangaswamy & Others Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Secretary to Government Commercial Taxes Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-05-2020 R. Kannan Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-05-2020 M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Nilesh Mahendra Kumar Gandhi & Another Versus The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Check of Accounts) & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
19-05-2020 M/s. Krishna Timber & Plywood Versus State of Tamilnadu, rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, CT & Re Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 M/s. Dekshinamoorthi & Co., rep. by its Partner, D. Govindarajan Versus The Commercial Tax Officer & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 M/s. Bharat Steels represented by its Proprietor Gulraj M. Jain Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Broadway Assessment Circle High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 Sri Venkateshwara Agencies, represented by its proprietor K. Somasundar Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Check Post Officer, Thoppur Inward, Kurinji Nagar & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 Vega Cotton represented by its proprietor V. Vivekanandan Versus The Check Post Officer, Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Check Point-II, Hosur & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 Vestas Wind Technology India Private Limited Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Enforcement, Roving Squad, Chengalpet & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 Tvl. Aravind Thiru Ceramics represented by its Proprietor N.K. Thirugnana Sambantham Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Roving Squad, (Enforcement) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-04-2020 Commercial Taxes Officer Versus M/s. Bombay Machinery Store Supreme Court of India
23-03-2020 J. Anbutamilarasi Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary, Commercial Taxes & Registration Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-03-2020 M/s. Fossil India Private Limited, Represented by Sunil Prabhakaran Authorised Signatory Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Audit-5.4), Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
13-03-2020 M/s. Inno-Tech Electronics Systems, Rep. by it's Proprietor – M. Ravichandran Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Mylapore Assessment Circle, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2020 J. Nagarajan Versus Chief Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-03-2020 The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Outer, Chennai V/S The Glovis India Private Limited, F-98, Kancheepuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2020 The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai & Another Versus Ramco Cements Ltd. rep. by its General Manager-Legal Thiru. T. Mathivanan, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2020 M/s. Shyam Textiles Limited, Hosur Versus The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Divisional Office, Commercial Branch, Southern Railway, Chennai Versus G. Bharathi High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-03-2020 Active Media Versus Divisional Commercial Manager, Northern Railway High Court of Delhi
04-03-2020 M/s. Commercial Steel Co. Versus ASC Sales Tax High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-03-2020 Hotel Surya, Iritty, Represented by Its Managing Partner, K.T. Mathew Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary To Government, Department of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
28-02-2020 SPI Cinemas Private Limited, Represented by its Director, K. Niranjan Reddy Versus Commercial Tax Officer, Royapettah Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 D. Soundararajapandian, Joint Commissioner (ST), Chennai(south), Commercial Taxes Department, Chennai & Others V/S The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary, Commercial Taxes & Registration Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 M/s. Hansa Enterprises, Rep by its Proprietrix Pinky Jain Versus The Principal Commissioner & Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 Padmesh Cashew Company, Represented by its Proprietor Rajan Kalladan Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Mahe High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2020 The Chennai Metropolitan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Chennai Versus The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its principal Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-02-2020 P. Ponnum Perumal Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to Government (FAC) Commercial Taxes & Registration (H) Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-02-2020 M/s. Hwashin Automative India Pvt. Ltd., Sriperumbudur Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Poonamallee Division, (Not known as the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Irungattukottai Division), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-02-2020 M/s Century Rayon (A division of Century Textile & Industries Ltd.), Maharashtra V/S Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Through its, Chief Engineer (Commercial), Maharashtra And Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
19-02-2020 M/s. GAIL (India) Limited, R.K. Puram, New Delhi Versus M/s. Arkay Energy(Rameswaram)Limited, Rep. by its President (Commercial and Legal) R. Jarard Kishore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 M/s. Shiv Mahadev Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Director H. Sahadevram Choudhary, Chennai Versus The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-02-2020 M/s. Carenow Medical Prviate Limited, Rep. by its Director & the auth. Rep.T.Rajkumar Versus Rajesh Sodhi, The Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 Commissioner, Commercial Taxes U.P. Lucknow Versus M/s. Narain Vegetable Products Sitapur High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
12-02-2020 M/s. Sharadha Terry Products Ltd., Coimbatore Versus Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Commercial Taxes Buildings, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-02-2020 Sri Kumaran Super Market, Dharmapuri District Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Harur Assessment Circle, Dharmapuri District High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-02-2020 M/s. Vinayaga Blue Metals, Represented by its Partner, P. Selvaraj Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-02-2020 K. Arumugham, Prop. Seetha Industries, Arakandanalu, Villupuram V/S The Secretary to Government, Department of Commercial Taxes & Religious Endowments, Chennai And Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-02-2020 M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Enterprises represented by its Proprietor R. Devika Versus The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Southern Railway Divisional Railway Manager's Office Commercial Branch, Park Town Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 Sutherland Mortgage Services INC, Cochin, Represented by Achutarama Gupta Nesthala Vizupu, Authorized Signatory, V.K. Gupta Versus The Principal Commissioner, Office of The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Central GST & Central Excise, Kochi Commissionerate & Others High Court of Kerala
31-01-2020 Reckitt Benckiser (india) Ltd V/S Commissioner Commercial Taxes and Others Supreme Court of India
31-01-2020 M/s. Indian Commercial Syndicate, Rep. by its Partner R. Natarajan, Coimbatore Versus The Special Committee, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-01-2020 Tata Sky Limited, Represented by its Chief Financial Controller, Sambasivan Ganesan, Chennai Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary, Commercial Taxes & Registration Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-01-2020 M/s. P.I. Polymers, Rep. by Proprietrix, Chennai Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Pattarawalkam Assessment Circle, Villivakkam High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2020 Nirmal Kumar Parsan & Others Versus Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Others Supreme Court of India
21-01-2020 M/s. Samrajyaa and Company, Represented by its Partner N. Ranganayaki Versus Deputy Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Office of the Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-01-2020 M/s. Vira Properties (Madras) Pvt. Ltd, Chennai, Rep. by its Manager, T.M. Damodaran Versus Commercial Tax Officer, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 ASL Builders Private Limited V/S Commissioner of Central GST & CX, Jamshedpur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Zonal Bench Bench, Kolkata
08-01-2020 A. Ponnusamy Pillay & Sons Versus The Commercial Tax Officer Karaikkal & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-01-2020 Asutosh & Another Versus Commercial Taxes Department (GST) & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
06-01-2020 TVL TCS Textiles Private Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatry, R. Mahesh, Tirupur Versus The Prinicipal Secretary & Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-01-2020 Phoenix International Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Allahabad
19-12-2019 T.K. Jagadeesan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Commercial Taxes and Registration (K), Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-12-2019 In Re: M/s. MFAR Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its Chief Executive Officer Fayaz Kamaluddin Versus Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Zone-II, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
28-11-2019 S. Arivu Versus The Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes & Registration Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-11-2019 K. Madheswari Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Musiri & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-11-2019 M/s. A.R.S. Metals (P) Limited, Chennai Versus Additional Commissioner (Revision Petition), Office of the Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-11-2019 BGR Energy Systems Limited, Represented by its Assistant Vice President Accounts, Chennai Versus The Additional Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Office of the Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Nungambakkam, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-11-2019 Punjab & Sind Bank Versus M/s. Indo Foreign Commercial Agency Products Private Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
13-11-2019 Haripada Barman, Retired Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Dibrugarh Versus The Union of India, Represented by The General Manger, N.F. Railway, Maligaon & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
13-11-2019 HI-TEK Traders, Changanacherry, Represented by C.C. Joyichan, Managing Partner Versus Commercial Tax Officer, Changanacherry & Others High Court of Kerala
12-11-2019 M/s. Murugan & Co, Rep. by its Partner P.A. Sankar Versus The Union of India, Rep. by its Commercial Tax Department, Government of Puducherry & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-11-2019 M/s. Kalyan Jewellers India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its. Manager V/S The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Commercial Taxes, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-11-2019 Phoenix Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Andhra Pradesh High Court of Andhra Pradesh
30-10-2019 Hydromet India Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, M. Venkata Subramanian, Kancheepuram Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Kancheepuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-10-2019 Karma Enterprises, Kozhikode, Represented by Its Managing Partner K.M. Sasidharan Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Deputy Commissioner (Law, Commercial Taxes), Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
17-10-2019 K.P.L. International Limited, Represented by it Senior Vice President, R.P. Mundra Versus The Commercial Tax Officer Saidapet Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-10-2019 M/s. Crystal Apartments, CSI Commercial Centre, Baker Junction, Kottayam represented by its Managing Partner Binny Itty, Govindapuram kara, Kottayam Versus Saji Thomas Varghese, Chalukunnau, Kottayam rep. By Power of Attorney Holder & Others Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
15-10-2019 M/s. Pioneer Agro Industry, Tirupur Versus Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-10-2019 M/s. Vaishnavi Overseas Rep. by its Authorized signatory, Kolkatta, West Bengal Versus Commercial Tax Officer Enforcement (Central), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-10-2019 M/s. Vinayagar Spinning Mills, Tirupur & Others Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Tirupur High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-09-2019 Foods, Fats and Fertilizers Limited represented by its Authorised Signatory T.K. Ravindran, Chennai & Another Versus The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Kancheepuram & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-09-2019 ReNew Power Limited having its corporate office at Commercial Block 1, Represented by its Authorized Representative Satwik E & Others Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Energy Infrastructure & Investment Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
23-09-2019 M/s. Sree Vaduganathar Spinning Mills, Rep. by its Partner, N. Selvaraj & Another Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Palladam Assessment Circle & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-09-2019 Magna Cranes Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, G. Vasu Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary Commercial Taxes Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-09-2019 M/s. C.A. Motors, Rep. by its Managing Partner C. Balamurugan Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruvarur High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-09-2019 Manjit Commercial LLP Versus SPM Auto Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
04-09-2019 M/s. Filaments & Windings (India) Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore Versus The Principal Commissioner & Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2019 TVL. K.H. Shoes Ltd., Rep. by its Director M. Mohammed Shameem, Chennai Versus The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Revision Petition), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-08-2019 M/s. Alkraft Thermotechnologies (Pvt.) Ltd., Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai, Rep. by Authorised Signatory, P. Sirajudeen Versus Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-08-2019 M. Saroopchand Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax Department, Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2019 The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Outer Commissionerate Versus Intimate Fashions India (P) Ltd., Guduvancherry High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-2019 Prajapati Gunwant Keshavlal Versus Union of India, Representing General Manager (Commercial) & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
25-07-2019 In Re: Beach Mineral Producers Association Ittamozhi Road, Tirunelveli & Another Versus V. Velmurugan Proprietor of M/s Phoenix Agency, Tirunelveli & Others Competition Commission of India
25-07-2019 M/s. Emkay Engineering Works, Represented by its Proprietor, R. Chinniah, Chennai Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Pattaravakkam Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras