Dated this the 13th day of February 2020 The petitioner, a proprietary business entity registered under the Central Goods and Service Tax / State Goods and Service Tax, has approached this Court under Article 226 challenging Exts.P3A to P3(n), whereby the assessment order under Section 2 of the State Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 has been passed, inter alia on the ground that the petitioner had, vide intimation dated 25.11.2019, informed regarding closure of the business.
2. Secondly, the petitioner had filed all the monthly returns for the period during which the business was carried out and therefore, in the absence of any issuance of assessment orders or seeking information under Section 46 of the Act is usually uncalled for. Cancellation of registration under Section 29 (3) of the Act though will envisage that it will not affect the liability of the person to pay tax on another dues for any period prior to the cancellation, but the aforementioned facts conspicuously are wanting in the impugned order.
3. The learned State Counsel submits that a person who closes the business and do not file the returns, in the instant case, for the periods with effect from April 2018 to June 2019, the assessment orders accordingly for the year 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, were passed.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that petitioner has a remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act. On a plain and simple language of section 29 of the Act, even if the person stops the business resulting in cancellation of the registration, the liability accrued till such time cannot be waived or diminished. This is what the case in brief is.
No ground for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.