Heard Mr. G. Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. Santhi Chandra, learned Junior Standing Counsel, CBIC, for respondents no.1 to 4 and Mr. Harinath N., learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent no.5.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 25.06.2021 passed by respondent no.4 by which the application for consideration under Section 80 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “CGST Act”) read with Rule 158 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 has been rejected and further against the action of respondent no.2 in cancelling the registration of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was doing business in cotton and was successfully conducting the same, but due to loss incurred, the taxes for the period from December, 2017 to December, 2018 could not be paid which was compounded due to non-receipt of incentives by the State Government. Thus, it is submitted that the Court may grant indulgence for the petitioner to start functioning and repay the dues against the demand of the respondents as also contribute towards taxes in future.

4. Learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 4 had taken time on 25.11.2021 to take instructions on the relief sought for by the petitioner for fixing installments for payment of dues.

5. Learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 4 submitted that as per the computation made by the authorities, the amount which still remains to be paid by the petitioner would come to about ₹ 1.25 crores.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the authorities be directed to come up with specific amount after computation by quantifying penalty and interest and disclose the figure to the petitioner so that he may repay the same in installments. It is submitted that as the petitioner is still not functioning due to the prevailing circumstances and cancellation of his registration, the authority may be directed to restore the registration and the petitioner be granted time of 12 months so that he may make payment in equal installments every month.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents no.1 to 4 submitted that the Court may not grant more than six months to the petitioner as already he has availed over two years time.

8. Having considered the rival contentions, for serving the larger ends of justice and balancing equities, moreso, in view of the fact that, if the industry starts functioning, it would be in a position, both to satisfy the demand of the respondents as also generate business and to pay future taxes and equally give employment to the workers, the Court is inclined to allow the petitioner to pay the amount as would be quantified by the respondents in ten (10) equal installments.

9. Accordingly, let respondent no.2 quantify the actual amount which the petitioner is required to pay with regard to penalty and interest and indicate the same to the petitioner within two weeks. Upon doing so, the petitioner shall pay the amount in ten (10) equal installments to be paid on or before the 5th day of each month commencing from 15.01.2022. If there is default in any of the installments as indicated above, it shall be open to the respondents to take recourse for recovery of the amount as may be available to them in law. As a consequence, let authorities restore the registration of the petitioner within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Any default in repayment as per the schedule indicated would also automatically result in cancellation of the registration of the petitioner.

10. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.

11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending also stand disposed of.