M/S Evolve Promoters Private Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Appeal Ist Dehradun

Held

The Court allowed the Writ Petition in part. It quashed the impugned order dated 18.11.2024 passed by Respondent No. 1. The Court held that the delay in invoking the provisions of Section 30 of the Act should be condoned, following the reasoning in the cited precedent, Web Docorina vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax/State GST and others. The reasoning was based on the larger objective of protecting livelihood and preventing loss of revenue to the department, especially in the initial stages of GST implementation where common men might struggle with compliance. The Court directed that if the petitioner files an application under Section 30 of the Act within three weeks from the date of the order, it shall be taken up for consideration and disposed of within three weeks thereafter. The petitioner was also directed to file all returns up to the date of the cancellation order along with the application.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Evolve Promoters Private Limited, a structural contractor registered under the GST Act, 2017, had its GST registration cancelled by Respondent No. 2 (Assistant Commissioner, State Tax) on 29.04.2023, due to non-filing of periodical returns. The petitioner failed to reply to the Show Cause Notice. An appeal filed by the petitioner along with a delay condonation application before Respondent No. 1 (Joint Commissioner (Appeal)) was rejected on 18.11.2024. The petitioner contended that it has now filed all returns and is willing to deposit fees, tax, and penalty to revive its registration, arguing that debarring it from re-entering the GST fold would violate constitutional rights and the objective of the GST regime.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in filing an application to revoke the cancellation of GST registration under Section 30 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, should be condoned, considering the petitioner's submission that all returns have been filed and they are ready to deposit dues, and the potential impact on livelihood and state revenue? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the intention of GST enactments and rules is to facilitate, not debar, assessees from re-entering the GST fold. They contended that interpreting the provisions to permanently debar them from reviving their registration would violate Articles 14, 19(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. They relied on the High Court's decision in Writ Petition (M/B) 176 of 2025, Web Docorina vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax/State GST and others, which condoned delay in similar circumstances. Revenue's arguments: The learned Brief Holder for the State did not dispute the facts presented by the petitioner and submitted that the Writ Petition could be disposed of in similar terms as the cited precedent.