M/S Ramchandra Singh Rawat vs. Commissioner SGST

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition could be decided in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 345 of 2023, given the consensus between the parties. The Court directed the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order under Section 30 of the Central GST Act within two weeks. Along with the application, the petitioner must furnish all the GST returns that were not submitted and deposit the outstanding GST dues. The competent authority is then required to consider the petitioner's application and pass an appropriate order as per law within four weeks of the application being filed. The ratio decidendi is that where a High Court has consistently decided similar matters based on specific precedents, and the respondents do not contest this, the current petition should follow the established pattern, allowing the petitioner an opportunity to rectify the non-compliance upon fulfilling certain conditions.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ramchandra Singh Rawat, a taxable person registered with CGST, had his GST registration cancelled by an order dated 28.06.2023. The cancellation was due to non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner attributed this lapse to a communication gap with his tax consultant. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand challenging the cancellation order. The respondents are the Commissioner SGST and another authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the GST registration, cancelled due to non-filing of returns for six consecutive months, should be revoked, considering the petitioner's explanation of a communication gap with his tax consultant? The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was based on a technical ground and that the issue was identical to those decided by this Court in Writ Petition No. 345 of 2023 and other similar petitions. The petitioner relied on the precedent set by this Court in those cases. The respondents, through their learned counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding identical issues. They fairly submitted that the writ petition could be decided in terms of the order passed in WPMS No. 345 of 2023, indicating no specific argument against the petitioner's plea for revocation based on the cited precedent.