Deepjyoti Sharma vs. The State Of Assam And 3 Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Deepjyoti Sharma, challenged an order dated July 12, 2021, which cancelled his GST registration. The petitioner contended that the cancellation was due to non-filing of returns, a situation he had rectified by filing the pending returns. He argued that continuing the cancellation would cause him hardship and serve no fruitful purpose for the department. The respondents, represented by the Standing Counsel for Taxes, submitted that the cancellation was in accordance with the law. The tax period(s) involved are not explicitly stated, nor is the specific authority that passed the initial cancellation order, beyond it being a GST authority. The amount in dispute is not mentioned.
Held
The Court held that if the petitioner has indeed filed the pending returns, the order of cancellation of GST registration should be revoked by the authorities. The Court reasoned that the sole ground for cancellation was non-submission of returns for a particular period, which the petitioner had rectified. Therefore, revoking the cancellation would address the issue. The Court directed that the GST registration shall come into effect upon the petitioner filing the returns. This direction is conditional on the prior filing of the returns. The Court also clarified that the returns must be accompanied by all statutory dues and/or penalties. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration, based solely on non-filing of returns, should be revoked when the petitioner has subsequently filed the pending returns? (Question of law and fact, turning on provisions related to GST registration cancellation and compliance). Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that since the sole reason for cancellation was non-filing of returns, and he has since filed them, the cancellation order should be revoked. He contended that maintaining the cancellation would cause him grave prejudice and hardship, and would not benefit the department. Revenue's argument: The revenue, through the Standing Counsel, argued that the cancellation of GST registration was done as per the law. No specific provisions, circulars, or precedents were cited by either side.
Sections Cited
Not specified in the judgment
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 27.03.2023 Heard Shri RS Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner has put to challenge an order dated 12.07.2021 whereby the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled.
It is the case of the petitioner that since the reason of cancellation was nonfiling of the returns and the petitioner has already filed the returns for the period involved, no fruitful purpose would be served either to the Department and on the other hand, grave prejudice and hardships would be caused to the petitioner.
Shri B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Taxes however submits on instructions that cancellation of GST is as per law.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the only reason of cancellation of GST registration being non submission of the returns for a particular period which has been sought to be rectified by filing the same by the petitioner, it is directed that if the petitioner has filed the returns, the order of cancellation shall be revoked by the authorities and the GST registration shall come into effect. The aforesaid direction is however subject to the condition mentioned above of prior filing of the returns.
It is needless to state that the returns are to be accompanied by all statutory dues and /or penalty.
Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.