Triptveer Singh vs. Assistant Commissioner State Goods And Service Tax

Held

The High Court noted that the petitioner's counsel submitted that the present controversy was identical to one decided by the Court on the previous day in WPMS No. 2317 of 2024. The learned State Counsel did not dispute this submission. Consequently, the Court decided the present writ petition in terms of the order passed in WPMS No. 2317 of 2024. The petitioner was granted liberty to move an application for revocation of the cancellation of his GST registration under Section 30 of the Central GST Act within three weeks. He was directed to furnish all pending GST returns and deposit outstanding tax and dues along with his application. The Competent Authority was directed to consider the application within four weeks thereafter and pass an appropriate order as per law. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Triptveer Singh, engaged in providing transportation services, had his GST registration cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax, on August 2, 2023. The cancellation was based on the reason that the petitioner was not conducting business from the declared place of business. The petitioner challenged this order and sought the revival of his GST registration to continue his business activities. The petitioner's counsel submitted that a similar issue had been decided by the High Court on the preceding day in another writ petition, WPMS No. 2317 of 2024. The State counsel did not dispute this submission.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration by the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax, on August 2, 2023, for not conducting business from the declared place, is valid and in accordance with law? The petitioner argued that the issue was identical to one decided by the High Court on the previous day in WPMS No. 2317 of 2024, implying the cancellation might be erroneous or that a procedural remedy should be available. The petitioner relied on the precedent set by the Court in the aforementioned writ petition. The respondent-State, through its counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding the applicability of the previous order, indicating no specific counter-argument was presented on the merits of the cancellation itself, but rather a concession on the procedural path forward.