Global Traders Gstin vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Held

The Court held that in view of the consensus between the parties that the matter was covered by the order passed in WPMS No. 1030 of 2024, the present writ petition would also be decided in terms of that order. The Court directed the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order under Section 30 of the UKGST Act within two weeks from the date of the order. Along with this application, the petitioner was required to furnish all the GST returns that were not submitted and deposit any outstanding GST dues. The Court further directed that if the application was made within the stipulated time, the competent authority would consider the petitioner's application and pass an appropriate order as per law within four weeks thereafter. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, as the matter was resolved by consensus and reference to a prior judgment.

Facts

The petitioner, a taxable person registered under the Uttarakhand GST Act, had their GST registration cancelled by the State Tax Officer on February 17, 2023. The cancellation was based on the ground of non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner attributed this failure to a communication gap with their tax consultant. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the cancellation order. The petitioner argued that a similar issue had been decided by the Court in another writ petition, WPMS No. 1030 of 2024, and requested the present petition be decided on the same terms. The Standing Counsel for the State did not dispute this submission.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns, where the petitioner attributes the failure to a communication gap with their tax consultant, warrants intervention by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction, particularly when a precedent exists for similar cases? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of grounds for cancellation and the scope of judicial review). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the issue was identical to that decided in Writ Petition No. 1030 of 2024 and other similar writ petitions, and therefore, the present petition should be decided in terms of the judgment in the aforementioned writ petition. They relied on the principle of parity. Revenue/State's contention: The Standing Counsel for the State fairly submitted that the writ petition could be decided in terms of the order passed in WPMS No. 1030 of 2024, thereby agreeing with the petitioner's submission.