Page 111 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

2020 ] PHOENIX RUBBERS v. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, SGST DEPTT., PALAKKAD 13
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 re-
turns 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 mis-
statement 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 Legisla-
ture 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 peti-
tioner 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 correct-
ness 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 in-
deed six months’ continuous default on the part of the petitioner in filing the re-
turns. 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 respond-
ent 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
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  175