M/S Vrishank Advertising vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Held

The Court held that the orders of the Assessing Authority dated January 22, 2020, and the First Appellate Authority dated February 14, 2020, were not sustainable. This decision was based on the Central Goods and Services Tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2020. The Court noted that the learned Standing Counsel did not dispute the validity or applicability of this Gazette Notification. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders. The petitioner's application dated January 7, 2020, for revocation of the cancellation order dated October 10, 2018, was directed to be decided afresh in accordance with law within a period of 15 days from the date of production of a copy of the Court's order. The ratio decidendi is that a Removal of Difficulties Order, when issued, can impact pending proceedings and provide relief by clarifying timelines for statutory compliances, especially when not disputed by the revenue.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Vrishank Advertising, had its GST registration cancelled by the Assessing Authority on October 10, 2018, under Section 29(2)(c) of the GST Act, 2017. The petitioner subsequently filed an application for revocation of this cancellation. This application was rejected on January 22, 2020. The petitioner then filed a First Appeal under Section 107 of the Act, which was dismissed on February 14, 2020. Due to the absence of a GST Tribunal, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition before the High Court challenging the orders of the Assessing Authority and the First Appellate Authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the orders of the Assessing Authority and the First Appellate Authority are sustainable in light of the Central Goods and Services Tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2020, issued under Section 172 of the Act? The petitioner contended that the aforementioned Removal of Difficulties Order, issued on June 25, 2020, should be applied retrospectively to their case. This order clarified that for calculating the period for filing an application for revocation of cancellation of registration under Section 30(1) of the Act, where the cancellation order was passed up to June 12, 2020, the later of the date of service of the cancellation order or August 31, 2020, would be considered. The petitioner argued that this clarification rendered the previous rejections unsustainable. The respondent, State of U.P. and others, through the learned Standing Counsel, did not dispute the Gazette Notification.