Ms Rhs Enterprises vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Held

The Court took on record the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents. The Court disposed of the petition with the liberty granted to the petitioner to make a representation to respondent no.2/Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Kashipur, Sector-1, Uttarakhand, within two weeks for the revocation of the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration. The Court directed that if such a representation is made, it shall be decided by respondent no.2 within a period of two weeks, in accordance with law. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that the liability had been discharged and the respondents' assurance that the application for revocation would be considered. The ratio decidendi is that when a taxpayer has rectified the default by paying the dues and seeks to revoke a cancellation order, the authorities should consider such applications expeditiously and in accordance with law.

Facts

M/s RHS Enterprises (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand challenging the cancellation of its GST registration by the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Kashipur (respondent no.2). The cancellation was reportedly based on the petitioner claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC) on invoices from a non-existent firm. The petitioner sought to quash the cancellation order and requested permission to file an application for revocation of the cancellation. The petitioner stated that the amount due had been deposited and sought to make a representation for revocation. The respondents acknowledged that an order under Section 74(9) read with Section 161 of the UK SGST/CGST/IGST Act, 2017, was passed and that the petitioner had made the liability good.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to prefer an application for revocation of the cancellation of its GST registration, given that the alleged liability has been deposited. The petitioner argued that the GST registration was cancelled on grounds of claiming ITC on invoices of a non-existent firm. However, the petitioner contended that the amount has since been deposited, and therefore, it should be allowed to submit a representation for revocation of the cancellation order to the proper officer. The respondents submitted that an order was passed under Section 74(9) read with Section 161 of the UK SGST/CGST/IGST Act, 2017. They stated that the petitioner has made the liability good and is not under any dues to the department. The respondents further submitted that if the petitioner moves an application for revocation of the order of cancellation of his GST registration, it may be considered by respondent no.2.