M/S Cubicon Building Service Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Held

The Court held that the Central Goods and Services Tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2020, issued under Section 172 of the Act, was applicable. The Court found that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent did not dispute the Gazette Notification. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated May 27, 2019, passed by the respondent no. 4 (likely the First Appellate Authority) and the order dated January 22, 2020, passed by the respondent no. 3 (likely the Assessing Authority). The Court directed that the petitioner's application dated May 10, 2019, for revocation of the cancellation order dated April 16, 2019, be decided afresh in accordance with law within 15 days from the date of production of a copy of this order. The ratio decidendi is that subsequent remedial legislation, such as a Removal of Difficulties Order, can override or render unsustainable prior orders passed under the original provisions if it provides a more beneficial or extended timeline for compliance, and if not disputed by the revenue.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Cubicon Building Service Private Limited, had its GST registration cancelled by the Assessing Authority on April 16, 2019, under Section 29(2)(c) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner's subsequent application for revocation of this cancellation was rejected on May 27, 2019. A First Appeal filed against this rejection was dismissed on January 22, 2020. Due to the absence of a GST Tribunal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before the High Court. The petitioner contended that subsequent developments rendered the prior orders unsustainable.

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 argued that the Central Goods and Services Tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2020, specifically the clarification regarding the period for filing applications for revocation of cancellation of registration, rendered the previous orders unsustainable. The petitioner highlighted that for registered persons whose cancellation orders were passed up to June 12, 2020, the period for filing the revocation application would be calculated based on the later of the date of service of the cancellation order or August 31, 2020. The learned counsel for the petitioner read out the relevant Gazette Notification dated June 25, 2020. The respondent revenue did not dispute the applicability or content of this Gazette Notification.