Bipin Chandra Kapri vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Held

The Court held that the writ petition should be disposed of on similar terms as previous similar writ petitions. The reasoning was that the cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of periodical returns, when the petitioner undertakes to pay the tax along with interest and penalty, does not cause prejudice or loss to the department. Furthermore, it involves the fundamental right to carry out trade or business. Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to allow the writ petition. The operative direction was to permit the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. If the petitioner makes such an application within two weeks from the date of the order and furnishes all pending returns and deposits unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, the Competent Authority shall consider the prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Bipin Chandra Kapri, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of his GST registration by the Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3, vide an order dated 12.03.2024. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment where a similar petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation of cancellation, with the Competent Authority directed to consider the application. The respondent State indicated no objection to a similar order being passed. The High Court had previously disposed of similar petitions on the same grounds, allowing petitioners to file revocation applications upon furnishing pending returns and depositing unpaid tax with interest and penalty.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an application for revocation of the cancellation of his GST registration, considering his failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that a similar order was passed in a previous case (Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024), wherein the petitioner was allowed to make an application for revocation of the cancellation order, and the Competent Authority was directed to consider it. The petitioner sought a similar disposition for the present case. Respondent's Argument: The learned Brief Holder for the State submitted that she had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order. The Court noted that the cancellation was on account of non-filing of periodical returns, and petitioners had undertaken to pay the tax along with interest and penalty.