Durga Singh vs. Superintendent CGST

Held

The Court held that the writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the order passed in WPMS No. 1014 of 2024, given the consensus between the parties. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order under Section 30 of the CGST Act read with Rule 23 of the CGST Rules. This application was to be filed within two weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner was directed to comply with all conditions stipulated in Section 30 of the CGST Act, furnish all pending returns, and deposit all outstanding dues. The competent authority was directed to decide the revocation application within two weeks of its filing, provided it was filed within the stipulated timeframe. The ratio decidendi is that where a party demonstrates a genuine attempt to rectify a procedural lapse and the respondent concedes to the applicability of a prior judgment on identical facts, the Court may grant an opportunity for revocation of registration cancellation, subject to compliance with statutory requirements and payment of dues.

Facts

The petitioner, a taxable person registered under the Central GST Act, is aggrieved by the cancellation of their GST registration by the respondent. The cancellation order, dated 8.6.2023, was based on the ground of non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner attributed this lapse to a communication gap with their tax consultant. The petitioner contended that a similar issue was decided by the High Court in a previous writ petition, WPMS No. 1014 of 2024. The respondent's counsel did not dispute this and agreed that the present petition could be decided in line with the earlier order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months, due to a communication gap with a tax consultant, warrants revocation, considering a precedent set by this Court in WPMS No. 1014 of 2024? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the present controversy is identical to that decided in WPMS No. 1014 of 2024, implying that the Court should follow the same reasoning and grant relief. They relied on the principle that similar cases should be treated alike. Revenue's Argument: The respondent's 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. 1014 of 2024, indicating an agreement with the petitioner's stance on the applicability of the prior judgment.