Ms Unique Security Solutions vs. Commercial Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the writ petition could be decided in terms of the order passed in WPMS No. 75 of 2023, 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 CGST Act. This application must be filed within one month from the date of the order. The petitioner is required to comply with all conditions stipulated in Section 30 of the CGST Act, including furnishing all previously unsubmitted returns and depositing all pending dues. The competent authority is directed to decide on the revocation application, if filed within the stipulated time, as per law, within four weeks thereafter. The ratio decidendi is that a GST registration cancellation, if caused by circumstances like a communication gap with a consultant and if the taxpayer takes steps to rectify the non-compliance and pays dues, can be revoked under Section 30 of the CGST Act, following established High Court precedents.

Facts

The petitioner, a taxable person registered under the Central GST Act, is aggrieved by the cancellation of their GST registration. The cancellation order, dated May 19, 2023, was issued on the grounds of non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner attributes this lapse to a communication gap with their tax consultant. The petitioner's counsel submitted that a similar issue was decided by this Court in WPMS No. 75 of 2023. The counsel for the respondents did not dispute this and agreed that the present petition could be decided in terms of the order in WPMS No. 75 of 2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months, due to a communication gap with the tax consultant, warrants revocation under Section 30 of the CGST Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the cancellation was due to a communication gap with their tax consultant and that an identical controversy had been decided by this Court in WPMS No. 75 of 2023. They relied on the principle that such lapses, if explained and rectified, could lead to revocation of cancellation. Revenue's contention: The revenue's counsel did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding the precedent set in WPMS No. 75 of 2023 and fairly submitted that the writ petition could be decided in terms of that order. No specific arguments or reliance on provisions were recorded for the revenue.