Pooran Singh vs. Superintendent Central Goods And Services Tax

Held

The Court held that the writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 17.03.2025, rendered in Writ Petition (M/B) No.71 of 2025, which itself followed the order in Writ Petition (S/B) No.39 of 2025. The reasoning was that the present petitioner was similarly situated as the petitioner in the earlier writ petition. Consequently, the Court disposed of the instant writ petition by permitting the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. The Competent Authority was directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of such application, provided the petitioner made the application within two weeks, furnished all pending returns, and deposited the unpaid tax along with interest and penalty. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Pooran Singh, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of his GST registration by the Superintendent, Central Goods & Services Tax. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period. The petitioner sought relief similar to that granted in a previous writ petition (Writ Petition (S/B) No.39 of 2025), where the court had allowed the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order. The respondent, the Superintendent of Central Goods & Services Tax, did not object to this course of action. The present writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order passed in the earlier writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, whose GST registration has been cancelled for non-furnishing of returns, should be permitted to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, considering the precedent set in similar cases? (Question of law and fact, turning on the principles of natural justice and the provisions governing GST registration and cancellation). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that his case was similar to that in Writ Petition (S/B) No.39 of 2025, where the court had permitted the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order. He relied on the judgment in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024, which allowed a similar prayer. Respondent's contention: The respondent, through their counsel, stated they had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order.