Gur Minerals vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Held

The Court held that since the controversy involved in the present writ petition was identical to that decided in WPMS No. 643 of 2024, and in view of the consensus between the parties, the writ petition would be decided in terms of the order passed in the earlier writ petition. 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 the outstanding dues of Goods and Service Tax. The competent authority was directed to consider the petitioner's application and pass an appropriate order, as per law, within four weeks of the application being filed, provided it was made within the stipulated time.

Facts

The petitioner, a taxable person registered under the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, had their GST registration cancelled on December 28, 2023. The cancellation was based on the ground of non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive tax periods. The petitioner attributed this lapse to a communication gap with their tax consultant. The petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition, seeking relief. The petitioner's counsel referred to a previous judgment of the Court dated March 13, 2024, in WPMS No. 643 of 2024, and requested the present petition be decided in terms of that order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the GST registration, cancelled for non-filing of returns for six consecutive periods, can be revoked upon the petitioner furnishing pending returns and depositing outstanding dues, in light of the principles laid down in WPMS No. 643 of 2024? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the present writ petition should be decided in terms of the judgment dated March 13, 2024, rendered in WPMS No. 643 of 2024, implying that similar relief should be granted. The petitioner relied on this precedent for the desired outcome. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the respondents (State of Uttarakhand) fairly submitted that the controversy in this writ petition is identical to the one decided in the aforesaid writ petition. Therefore, the respondents had no objection if this writ petition was decided in terms of the judgment dated March 13, 2024, in WPMS No. 643 of 2024.