Assesee was not allowed to migrate from provisional GST to regular GST if the time prescribed under statute has been lapsed and assessee has not applied for migration within statutory period.

Case Title: S. Bindu v. Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Department

Court: High Court of Kerala

Petition Number: W.P. (C) No. 27731 of 2019 (N)

Category of Dispute: GST Registration – Migration from Service Tax

Date of Judgment: 14 November 2019

Relevant Sections: Rule 24 of CGST Rules, 2017; provisions of Finance Act, 1994 (pre-GST service tax); CGST Act, 2017

Facts of the Case

1. The petitioner, S. Bindu, a registered works contract service provider under the Finance Act, 1994, was provisionally allotted a GSTIN as per Rule 24 of CGST Rules, 2017 after the introduction of GST in July 2017. [Para 1]
2. The statutory procedure required conversion of this provisional GSTIN into a permanent registration within the stipulated migration window. [Para 1]
3. Despite multiple extensions granted by the Central Government—until 31 January 2019—the petitioner failed to convert her provisional registration. [Para 1]
4. Only in March 2019, the petitioner took a fresh GST registration and subsequently filed a representation (Ext. P5) seeking retrospective migration from July 2017, to enable tax payment and ITC claim on stock. [Para 1]

Questions in Consideration

• Whether the petitioner can be allowed retrospective migration to GST from July 2017 despite failing to avail the multiple opportunities extended under the law. [Para 2]

Observations of the Court

1. The Court noted that the petitioner had multiple chances to migrate but remained inactive throughout the extended time windows. [Para 2]
2. The plea to permit retrospective migration, enabling tax payment and ITC on old stock, was held to be unjustified given the petitioner’s negligence. [Para 2]
3. The Court emphasized that such inaction could not be condoned especially when general extensions had already been provided to similarly placed taxpayers. [Para 2]

Judgment of the Court

• The writ petition was dismissed. The Court refused to grant retrospective migration or permit availing of ITC benefits due to the petitioner’s failure to act within the statutory deadlines. [Para 2]

Between Fine Lines

• The case underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for GST migration.
• Mere filing of a representation does not undo lapses in compliance.
• Taxpayers who miss migration deadlines cannot seek retrospective relief.
• Courts may not condone repeated non-compliance, even for genuine taxpayers.
• Timely registration is essential for availing ITC and maintaining continuity.

Summary of Referred Cases

No external cases were cited or discussed in this judgment.