M/S Utkrisht Logistics, Gstin, 10Azdps6498L1Zt vs. State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that Annexure-P/6, the order refusing to revoke the cancellation, is set aside. The Court found that the fourth proviso to Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017, governs situations where registration is cancelled retrospectively. This proviso requires the registered person to file returns from the effective date of cancellation (April 1, 2023) until the date of the revocation order within thirty days of the revocation order. The Assessing Officer is directed to revoke the cancellation and grant the petitioner the time stipulated under the fourth proviso to Rule 23 for filing the returns. The Court clarified that if the petitioner fails to file these returns within 30 days of the revocation, the cancellation will stand. The Court also directed that the petitioner's portal must be opened to facilitate the filing of returns within the prescribed time. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Utkrisht Logistics, is challenging an order (Annexure-P/6) that refused to cancel the revocation of their GST registration. The original cancellation order (Annexure-P/2), dated January 29, 2024, was made effective retrospectively from April 1, 2023. The petitioner's grievance is that the refusal to revoke the cancellation was based on the non-filing of pending returns. The petitioner contends that the applicable rule, in cases of retrospective cancellation, dictates a specific procedure for filing returns.

Key Issues

1. Whether the refusal to revoke the cancellation of GST registration was in accordance with the provisions of the CGST Act and Rules, specifically concerning retrospective cancellation and the filing of pending returns? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that the fourth proviso to Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017, is applicable when registration is cancelled retrospectively. This proviso mandates that the registered person must furnish all returns relating to the period from the effective date of cancellation till the date of the revocation order within thirty days of the revocation order. The petitioner contended that the impugned order failed to consider this specific proviso. The respondent (State of Bihar) did not present any arguments on this specific point as recorded in the judgment.