SGST High Court Cases

GST – Interpretation of proviso to Rule 22(4) of CGST Rules, 2017 - Cancellation of registration due to non-filing of returns for continuous period of six months - Whether the order of cancellation of registration due to non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months can be set aside if the returns are filed for a few months subsequent to the issuance of the Show Cause Notice - HELD – In terms of Rule 21(h) of the CGST Rules, the registration of a person is liable to be cancelled if the person has not furnished returns for a continuous period of six months. Even though the word 'continuous period of six months' was deleted from Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 the same was incorporated in Rule 21(h) of the CGST Rules - the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules provides that if a person 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 - In the present case, the petitioner had filed returns for only two months after the issuance of the show cause notice, which did not satisfy the requirement of the proviso to Rule 22(4) – a piecemeal filing of returns is not contemplated by the Rules and the taxpayer has an obligation to file all the returns for the six-month period along with the tax, interest, and late fee in order to avoid the cancellation of registration - the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in M/s. Phoenix Rubbers case was per incuriam as the proviso to Rule 22(4) was not considered by the learned Single Judge in that case - the order of cancellation of registration is legally justified as the petitioner failed to file all the pending returns along with the tax, interest, and late fee as required under the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules – The writ petition is dismissed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page