Sri Biki Rajkonwar vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's case would be considered for revocation of GST registration cancellation, subject to compliance with Rule 23 of the CG & ST Rules, 2017. The reasoning was based on the agreement of both parties to follow the prescribed procedure. The petitioner's counsel agreed to the recourse suggested by the GST authorities. The Court found no practical purpose in keeping the writ petition pending. The ratio decidendi is that while the online system might present challenges, the statutory procedure under Rule 23 must be followed, and the authorities are amenable to considering such cases if a court directs them to do so, provided the petitioner fulfills all statutory obligations. The operative direction was for the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities off-line within two weeks, seeking restoration of his GST registration, enclosing a copy of the order. The authorities were directed to take necessary steps as per the Rules and restore the registration expeditiously.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Biki Rajkonwar, is engaged in providing light motor vehicles on hire to ONGC and is registered under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. His GST registration was cancelled on March 17, 2023, due to non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking revocation of this cancellation, stating his willingness to regularly file returns and pay applicable taxes. He also submitted that he was unable to make an online request for revival after the cancellation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can seek revocation of his GST registration cancellation despite the online system's limitations, and if so, what is the procedure? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation and application of Rule 23 of the CG & ST Rules, 2017). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that due to the cancellation, he could not initiate the revival process online and sought the court's intervention to allow him to regularize his GST compliance. Revenue's contention: The respondent GST authorities, represented by the learned Standing Counsel, submitted that the revocation of cancellation of registration must follow the mandate of Rule 23 of the CG & ST Rules, 2017. They stated that if a direction was issued by the Court, the petitioner's case would be considered, subject to payment of taxes, penalties, filing of returns, and late fees.