M/S M.A.Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)

Held

The Court, following its previous order in W.P.No.18308 of 2024, disposed of the present writ petition with specific directions to resolve the issue. The petitioner was directed to file a fresh application for revocation, submit draft returns for the period of cancellation, and deposit all due taxes by March 24, 2025. The Registering Authority was instructed to accept the tax payment before considering the revocation application and to pass orders on the revocation within 15 days of its receipt. If the revocation was accepted, the petitioner's registration would be restored, and they would be required to file all pending returns. The Court also provided a provision for manual filing of the revocation application if online filing presented difficulties. The ratio decidendi is that procedural compliance and payment of dues can lead to the restoration of cancelled GST registration, even after an initial revocation application is dismissed, by following a prescribed process.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s M.a.enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, on October 30, 2024. The cancellation was based on grounds of non-filing of returns and non-payment of taxes. An subsequent application for revocation of this cancellation was also dismissed. The petitioner approached the High Court aggrieved by 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.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns and non-payment of taxes, and the subsequent dismissal of the revocation application, warrant intervention by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction, considering the petitioner's grievance and the need for procedural fairness? The petitioner argued that the cancellation order and the dismissal of the revocation application were erroneous and sought relief from the Court. The respondents, represented by the Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, did not present specific arguments on the merits of the cancellation or revocation dismissal but were subject to the Court's directions. The Court's approach was guided by a previous order in a similar case, implying a procedural resolution rather than a detailed legal contest on the validity of the cancellation itself.