Harak Singh Dhami vs. The Commissioner CGST
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to apply for revocation of the cancellation order under Section 30 of the CGST Act read with Section 23 of the CGST Rules. This application must be filed within two weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner is required to comply with all conditions stipulated in Section 30 of the CGST Act, including submitting all pending returns and depositing all outstanding dues. The Court directed that if such an application is filed within the stipulated period, the Competent Authority shall consider it within the subsequent two weeks. The reasoning is based on the precedent cited by the petitioner and the lack of dispute from the respondents, allowing for a procedural remedy to address the cancellation.
Facts
The petitioner, a contractor registered under the Central GST Act, 2017, had their GST registration cancelled on March 4, 2020, due to a continuous failure to furnish returns for six months. The petitioner attributed this default to their accountant, who allegedly failed to inform them of their liability to file returns. The petitioner brought this matter before the High Court via a writ petition, citing a similar controversy decided by a Coordinate Bench of the same Court in Writ Petition M/S No. 3187 of 2022. The respondents' counsel did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding the precedent.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner's GST registration, cancelled for failure to furnish returns, can be revoked upon compliance with statutory conditions, considering the alleged negligence of their accountant. This issue turns on Section 30 of the CGST Act and Section 23 of the CGST Rules. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that their failure to file returns was due to their accountant's oversight and that a similar case had been decided favorably by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court. They sought to have their present petition decided in line with that precedent. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents' counsel did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding the precedent and the possibility of a similar disposal.
Sections Cited
Section 30, Section 23
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
WPMS No. 2080 of 2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Pawan Kumar Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Shakshi Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondents.
Petitioner is a Contractor, who was registered under the provisions of Central GST Act, 2017. His registration has been cancelled vide order dated 04.03.2020 for his failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months. In para 6 of the writ petition, it is contended that the Accountant appointed by petitioner to look after GST related work did not inform the petitioner about his liability to file returns which led to default on the part of petitioner in submission of GST returns.
It is further contended by learned counsel for petitioner that Coordinate Bench of this Court has decided similar controversy in Writ Petition M/S No. 3187 of 2022. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition may also be decided in te
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.