Page 112 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

14 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
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 of October, 2019, Sep-
tember, 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, dated 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, i.e. 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 up to 20-12-2019 and for the month of December, 2019, the outer time in that
regard is up to 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 fur-
ther 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. [Section] 22 of the CGST Act reads as follows :
“Sec. 22. Persons liable for registration. - (1) Every supplier shall be li-
able 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 ex-
ceeds twenty lakh rupees :
Provided that where such person makes taxable supplies of goods or ser-
vices 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 ru-
pees.
(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 anoth-
er person as a going concern, the transferee or the successor, as the case

GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  176