M/S Dutha Pati Traders vs. The Goods And Services Tax Officer

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing a series of directions, effectively providing a pathway for the petitioner to seek revocation of the cancelled registration. The Court directed the petitioner to file an application for revocation and also submit draft returns. Crucially, the petitioner was ordered to deposit all due taxes by July 3, 2025. The Registering Authority was directed to receive this tax payment before considering the revocation application and to pass orders on the revocation application within 15 days of its receipt. If the application is accepted, the registration will be restored, and the petitioner will be required to file all pending returns. The Court also provided a concession for manual filing of the revocation application if online filing presents difficulties. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of GST registration cancellation due to non-compliance, the High Court can, by following precedent, direct a procedure for revocation and restoration upon compliance with tax obligations and procedural requirements, rather than outright quashing the cancellation order.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Dutha Pati Traders, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration by the Goods and Services Tax Officer on March 21, 2020. The cancellation was based on grounds of non-filing of returns and non-payment of taxes. The petitioner approached the High Court after the order of cancellation. The Court noted a similar circumstance in a previous writ petition, W.P.No.18308 of 2024, disposed of on October 16, 2024, with specific directions. Following that precedent, the Court disposed of the present writ petition with a set of directions for the petitioner and the respondent authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns and non-payment of taxes is valid, and if not, what is the appropriate relief? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning provisions related to cancellation of registration and the taxpayer's obligations under the GST Act). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner sought the restoration of its GST registration. While the judgment does not explicitly record detailed arguments from the petitioner, their act of filing the writ petition implies a challenge to the cancellation order and a desire for its reversal. Respondent's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. The Court's order is based on following a previous judgment in a similar case.