Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha Represented Thro Its Secretary Gagandeep Singh vs. The Principal Commissioner CGST And Cx

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the judgment dated 6th March, 2024, passed in W.P. (T) No. 827 of 2024 (Abdul Satar Versus The Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax and & Ors). While the specific findings of the Abdul Satar judgment are not detailed in this order, the fact that the present petition was disposed of in its terms implies that the Court found the facts and legal arguments of the present case to be analogous. Therefore, it can be inferred that the Court likely followed the principles laid down in the Abdul Satar judgment regarding the cancellation of registration and the appeal period. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the prior judgment, indicating that the relief granted would be consistent with the relief granted in Abdul Satar. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha, filed a writ petition challenging two orders. The first order, dated 08.06.2023, issued by Respondent No. 3, cancelled the petitioner's GST registration for failing to furnish returns for six continuous months. The second order, dated 26.02.2024, passed by Respondent No. 2 (Order-in-Appeal No. 20/CGST/RAN/2024), rejected the petitioner's appeal against the cancellation on the grounds of being filed after the limitation period prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner sought to quash both these orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 08.06.2023, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration for failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months, is valid and in accordance with law? (This issue is implied by the petitioner's challenge to the cancellation order). 2. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner against the cancellation order was rightly rejected on the ground of being filed after the expiry of the limitation period as envisaged under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? (This issue is explicitly stated in the petition). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the case is squarely covered by this Court's previous judgment dated 06.03.2024 in W.P. (T) No. 827 of 2024 (Abdul Satar Versus The Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax and & Ors) and sought disposal of the present petition in terms of that judgment. Respondents' contention: The learned counsel for the respondents did not raise any objection to the petitioner's submission.