The court directed the petitioners to file the necessary tax returns for the periods preceding the cancellation of their GST registrations

The Madras High Court recently issued a common order granting five Tamil Nadu businesses 45 days to restore their GST registrations, which were canceled due to delays in GSTR filing compliance. In the case at hand, multiple petitions were brought before the Madras High Court challenging the cancellation of their GST registrations. The petitioners were proprietors of different enterprises namely M/s. Vinayaga Enterprises, M/s. Mani Transport, M/s. Preethi Enterprises, M/s. Gem Enterprises, and M/s. Rohit Cars. These enterprises operate in different parts of Tamil Nadu. Essential Training for Tax Professionals: Know Your Sections!, Click here The GST registrations of the businesses were cancelled by the Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, who serves as the second respondent in the present case, due to their failure to file GST returns on time. The petitioners attributed their failure to timely compliance to Ill-Health and later filed appeals against these cancellations. However, the appeals were rejected by the Additional Commissioner of GST (Appeals-II), the first respondent, on the grounds that they were not filed within the stipulated time frame, leaving the petitioners without recourse under the standard appeal process. Aggrieved, the petitioners turned to the High Court, seeking relief through Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Essential Training for Tax Professionals: Know Your Sections!, Click here They requested the court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus—a judicial order that quashes the previous administrative decision and commands the authorities to act according to the law. Particularly, the petitioners sought the quashing of the cancellation orders issued by the second respondent and the upholding of the said orders by the first respondent. They also requested the court to direct the authorities to restore their GST registrations. In arguing their case, the petitioners’ counsel, Mr. P. Suresh Babu, pointed to a previous ruling in a similar case Marimuthu Venkateshwaran v. The Commissioner, where the court had provided relief under comparable circumstances. The petitioners’ counsel urged the court to apply the same reasoning in the present case, allowing the petitioners to rectify their tax filings and retain their GST registrations. Essential Training for Tax Professionals: Know Your Sections!, Click here The respondents, represented by Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Rajnish Pathiyil, did not contest the petitioners’ claims but submitted that if any relief is to be granted by the court, it should align with the conditional order issued in the case of Suguna Cutpiece v. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others, in which the court laid down specific conditions under which GST registrations could be restored. After taking into account the arguments presented by both sides ,the single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy decided that it was not necessary to delve into the merits of each case individually. Instead, the court disposed of the writ petitions by issuing a set of directions aimed at providing relief to the petitioners while ensuring compliance with the GST law through a common order. Essential Training for Tax Professionals: Know Your Sections!, Click here The court directed the petitioners to file the necessary tax returns for the periods preceding the cancellation of their GST registrations. This filing was to include all tax dues, along with interest and late fees, to be completed within 45 days from the date of receiving the court’s order. Additionally, the court specified that the payments could not be made or adjusted using any unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) unless expressly approved by a competent officer. The court further mandated that the unutilized ITC should remain intact until the authorities had an opportunity to scrutinize it. If approved, the ITC could be used for settling future tax liabilities. Furthermore, the petitioners were instructed to file returns and pay the GST for the periods after the cancellation. Essential Training for Tax Professionals: Know Your Sections!, Click here Upon compliance with these conditions, the court ordered that the petitioners’ GST registrations be reinstated immediately. To ensure petitioners’ compliance, the court also directed the respondents to coordinate with the GST Network in New Delhi to make sure that the necessary changes were made to the GST Web portal. The respondents were given a 30-day window to implement these changes. With these directions given, the writ petitions were thus disposed of, and any related miscellaneous petitions were also closed.