Aruna Gaind Mridula Gaind vs. State Of Haryana And Another

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner had filed a writ petition due to the non-consideration of her application for revocation of GST registration cancellation. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent authority, the Excise and Taxation Officer, Gurgaon (East), Ward No.10, issued an order dated 14.09.2022 revoking the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration. As a consequence of this development, the writ petition was rendered infructuous. The Court did not make any specific findings on the legality or merits of the initial cancellation order or the delay in processing the revocation application, as the issue became moot with the subsequent revocation order.

Facts

The petitioner, Aruna Gaind Mridula Gaind, had her GST registration cancelled by an order dated 29.07.2021. She subsequently filed an application for revocation of this cancellation on 15.09.2021 under Section 30 of the CGST/HGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 23 of the CGST/HGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner filed the present writ petition because her application for revocation was not being considered despite the passage of considerable time. The respondents, State of Haryana and another, were served with an advance copy of the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's application for revocation of GST registration cancellation, filed under Section 30 of the CGST/HGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 23 of the CGST/HGST Rules, 2017, was required to be considered by the respondent authority within a reasonable time? The petitioner argued that the delay in considering her application for revocation of GST registration, filed on 15.09.2021, was causing prejudice and that the authorities had failed to act within a reasonable timeframe. The respondents, represented by the learned DAG, Haryana, did not present any counter-arguments regarding the delay or the merits of the petitioner's application. Instead, they produced an order dated 14.09.2022.