M/S Versatile Construction Through Its Proprietor Manish Tiwari vs. State Of U.P. Through Its Principal Secretary (Tax And Finance) Civil Secretariat And 4 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 to the petitioner's case. The Court noted that the learned Standing Counsel did not dispute the Gazette Notification. Consequently, the orders dated November 2, 2019, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sector-8, Jhansi, rejecting the revocation application, and the order dated December 31, 2019, passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade -2 (Appeal) 1st Commercial Tax, Jhansi, dismissing the First Appeal, were set aside. The Court directed that the petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation, filed on October 19, 2019, be decided afresh in accordance with law within 15 days from the date of production of a copy of the order. The ratio decidendi is that remedial orders issued to remove difficulties, particularly those extending timelines for procedural compliances, should be applied retrospectively to pending matters, provided no contrary intention is expressed and the revenue does not dispute their applicability.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Versatile Construction, had its GST registration cancelled by the Assessing Authority on January 19, 2019, under Section 29(2)(c) of the GST Act. The petitioner applied for revocation of this cancellation. However, this application was rejected on November 2, 2019. The petitioner then filed a First Appeal, which was dismissed on December 31, 2019. Due to the absence of a GST Tribunal, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court. The petitioner argued that a subsequent Central Goods and Services Tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2020, issued under Section 172 of the Act, should apply to their case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Central Goods and Services Tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2020, issued under Section 172 of the Act, is applicable to the petitioner's case, thereby affecting the validity of the orders cancelling registration and rejecting the revocation application. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the Central Goods and Services Tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2020, issued on June 25, 2020, should be applied. This order clarified that for calculating the 30-day period for filing a revocation application, where cancellation orders were 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 relied on the Gazette Notification dated June 25, 2020. Respondent's contention: The learned Standing Counsel did not dispute the applicability of the Gazette Notification.