Bhawani Textile Thro Proprietor Jayesh Soni vs. Assistant Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the Commercial Tax Officer, GST, Ghatak-58, Surat (Respondent No. 2) should immediately look into the two applications filed by the writ applicant under Section 30 of the CGST Act. The Court directed Respondent No. 2 to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ applicant. The Court disposed of the writ application with a direction to Respondent No. 2 to hear the writ applicant at the earliest and pass an appropriate order within 8 days of receiving the Court's order. Regarding the credit of Rs. 30,01,237, the Court stated that if the cancellation of registration is revoked, the writ applicant can take appropriate steps to avail the credit in accordance with law. The issue of whether the credit should be automatically restored or if a separate process is required was not explicitly decided, but linked to the revocation outcome.

Facts

The writ applicant, Bhawani Textile, through its proprietor Jayesh Soni, filed a writ application seeking directions for the revocation of cancellation of its GST registration and to allow it to avail credit of Rs. 30,01,237. The cancellation occurred on 07.07.2020, issued by Respondent No. 2, following an inadvertent application for cancellation on 06.07.2020 by the applicant's consultant. The applicant subsequently filed an application for revocation under Section 30 of the CGST Act on 12.07.2020, followed by a second application on 21.11.2020 due to no response from the authorities. The applicant contended that no decision had been taken on its revocation request, preventing it from accessing the reversed credit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct Respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the applications filed by the petitioner for revocation of cancellation of registration under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that its consultant inadvertently applied for cancellation of registration, which was admitted by the consultant via affidavit. The petitioner filed two applications for revocation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, but the authorities failed to take any decision. This inaction has resulted in the petitioner being unable to avail credit of Rs. 30,01,237, which was inadvertently reversed. The petitioner sought a mandamus to compel the authorities to decide its revocation application and allow it to utilize the credit. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state.