Sha Constructions vs. Superintendent GST(Central Tax)

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. It directed the first respondent to consider the returns purportedly submitted by the petitioner. The respondent is further directed to pass an appropriate order regarding the revocation of the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration expeditiously, and not later than one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Court did not delve into the merits of whether the returns were actually filed or the validity of the cancellation order itself, but rather focused on ensuring the petitioner's submissions were considered. The reasoning appears to be that in the interest of justice, the petitioner should be given an opportunity to have their filed returns considered for potential revocation of the cancellation.

Facts

The petitioner's Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration was cancelled effective July 1, 2020, due to a failure to submit returns from June 2020. The petitioner, represented by counsel, stated that returns were filed up to the date of cancellation. The petitioner requested the court to direct the respondent to consider these returns and revoke the cancellation order in the interest of justice. The respondents, represented by the Government Pleader, contended that the cancellation was legally sound as returns were not submitted for the period in question.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration is legally flawed, considering the petitioner's claim of filing returns up to the date of cancellation? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on the provisions related to GST registration cancellation and return filing obligations). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they had filed returns until the date of cancellation and sought revocation of the cancellation order in the interest of justice. They requested the court to direct the respondent to consider these filed returns. Revenue's contention: The revenue argued that the GST registration was cancelled because the petitioner failed to submit returns from June 2020, and therefore, the impugned order of cancellation was legally valid with no apparent flaw.