Leighton INDIA Contractors Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

CW/4042/2026HC RajasthanGSTCNR RJHC02019993202605 March 2026Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

Leighton India Contractors Private Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition seeking GST registration in Rajasthan under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The registration was reportedly being denied because the company had not filed returns in Tamil Nadu, where it was previously registered. The petitioner argued that non-filing of returns in Tamil Nadu should not be a ground to deny GST registration in Rajasthan. The respondents are the Union of India and various GST authorities of Rajasthan.

Held

The Court held that the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, operates both centrally and in a state-centric manner. If a company is registered in a particular state and fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, such as by not submitting its returns, its registration may be cancelled or put in abeyance. The Court found no reason to allow a company that has defaulted in one state to obtain registration in another state without first complying with the law. Therefore, a company that is a defaulter in one state would be denied registration in other states. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's contentions and dismissed the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the denial of GST registration in Rajasthan is justified on the ground that the petitioner failed to file returns in Tamil Nadu, contrary to the provisions of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner contended that the GST registration in Rajasthan should not be denied solely based on the alleged non-filing of returns in Tamil Nadu. The petitioner argued that the Act of 2017 is a central legislation and that a default in one state should not automatically preclude registration in another. The respondents, through their counsel, argued that the GST Act operates both centrally and on a state-centric basis. They contended that a company registered in a particular state, if it fails to comply with the provisions of the Act by not submitting its returns, becomes a defaulter. Such a defaulter should be denied registration in other states as well, as non-compliance in one jurisdiction impacts its standing across the GST regime.

Sections Cited

Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4042/2026 Leighton India Contractors Private Limited, 6Th Floor, 703 Mundra Galleria, Commercial Office No. 703, Mundra Galleria, 100 Feet Road, Plot No.1, 100 Ft Main Road, Shobhagpura, Udaipur, Rajasthan - 313001 Through Authorized Power Of Attorney, Mr. Dinesh Agrawal S/o Damodar Prasad Agrawal Aged 42 Years, R/o B-Wing, 1804, 8Th Floor, Riverview, Casa Rio Palava Nilje, Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Thane, Maharashtra- 421204, Working In Petitioner Company As Head - Finance ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi- 110001 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Commissioner State Taxes Department, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur - 302005 3. Superintendent Central Processing Cell Cgst, Jaipur, Revenue Building, Statute Circle, C Scheme, Jaipur- 302005 4. Chief Commissioner, Central Processing Cell Cgst, Jaipur, Revenue Building, Statute Circle, C Scheme, Jaipur- 302005 5. Chief Commissioner, Cgst, Jaipur, Revenue Building, Statute Circle, C Scheme, Jaipur-302005 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Kumar Jain and Mr. Sakshya Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shiv Prakash Dhanera Mr. Arun Kumar, AGC with Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rathore and Mr. Rohan Mittal Mr. Vedant Agarwal with Mr. Rajat Sharma HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA (2 of 2) [CW-4042/2026]

Order 05/03/2026

Heard.

This petition has been preferred by the petitioner praying for GST registration in Rajasthan under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act of 2017’).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that registration is not being granted on the ground that the return was not filed by the Company at Tamil Nadu. He also submits that on the ground that return was not filed in Tamil Nadu, the GST registration in Rajsthan cannot be denied.

We have considered the submissions.

The Act of 2017 is parallel to the State GST Act. If a Company does not follow the provisions of law and after having been registered in particular State does not submit its return and its registration is cancelled or put in abeyance, the Company cannot be allowed to move an application for getting registration in another State, instead of complying with the provisions of the Act. In view of the particular State, the provisions of the Act are State-centric, at the same time Central- centric. Thus, a Company which is registered in a particular State and does not comply with the provisions of the Act, would be a defaulter and would, therefore, be denied registration in other State too.

We, therefore, do not find any reason to accept the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ N.Gandhi/SKS/27

Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.