Page 107 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

2020 ] PHOENIX RUBBERS v. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, SGST DEPTT., PALAKKAD 9
filing of return for one month - Since said continuous default of six months is
required not only at stage of issuing SCN but also at stage of issuing cancella-
tion order, impugned order quashed - However, Department at liberty to take
any other action as per law for such default and also at liberty to initiate can-
cellation proceedings as and when default subsequently becomes continuous
for six months - Section 29(2)(c) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 -
Article 226 of Constitution of India. [paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]
Interpretation of Statute - Cancellation of GST registration - Default in
filing returns for continuous period of six months - Such default not only
should exist at time of issuing SCN but also at time of passing cancellation
order - Section 29(2)(c) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Article
226 of Constitution of India. [para 9]
Petition allowed
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Harisankar V. Menon, Smt. Meera V. Menon
and Smt. K. Krishna, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Smt. Thushara James, Govt. Pleader, for the
Respondent.
[Judgment]. - 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 respond-
ents 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 re-
spondent. 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 registra-
tion 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 in-
deed 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 lia-
ble 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 petition-

GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  171