Binu Kumar vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition could be decided in terms of the order passed in WPMS No. 643 of 2024, given the consensus between the parties. The petitioner was granted liberty to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order under Section 30 of the Central GST Act within two weeks. Along with this application, the petitioner was required to furnish all the GST returns that were not submitted and deposit any outstanding dues of Goods and Service Tax. The Court directed that if the application was made within the stipulated time, the competent authority shall consider the petitioner's application and pass an appropriate order as per law within four weeks thereafter. The ratio decidendi is that where a consistent view has been taken by the High Court in similar matters, and the revenue concedes to it, taxpayers should be allowed to rectify their non-compliance by filing pending returns and paying dues to seek revocation of cancelled registration.

Facts

The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of their GST registration. The cancellation was based on the ground of non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition. The petitioner's counsel submitted that a similar controversy had been decided by the Court in WPMS No. 643 of 2024 and other similar writ petitions. The counsel for the State did not dispute this submission and fairly agreed that the present writ petition could be decided in terms of the order passed in WPMS No. 643 of 2024. The parties reached a consensus that the matter was covered by the previous order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the GST registration of the petitioner, cancelled for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months, should be restored, considering the precedent set in WPMS No. 643 of 2024 and other similar cases. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of the provisions related to cancellation of registration and revocation thereof under the Central GST Act. Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the cancellation of their GST registration was based on a ground that has been addressed and resolved in favor of taxpayers in previous writ petitions decided by this Court, specifically WPMS No. 643 of 2024. They relied on the principle of parity and consistency in judicial pronouncements. Contentions of the Revenue/State: The State, through its counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding the precedent. They fairly conceded that the writ petition could be decided in terms of the order passed in WPMS No. 643 of 2024, indicating no specific counter-argument against the petitioner's claim for relief based on the prior judgment.