Govind Bhushan Batra vs. State Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition is decided in terms of the order passed in WPMS No. 75 of 2023, given the consensus between the parties. The petitioner is 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 the revocation application, the petitioner must furnish all pending GST returns and deposit the outstanding Goods and Service Tax dues. The competent authority is directed to consider the petitioner's application and pass an appropriate order as per law within four weeks of receiving the application, provided it is filed within the stipulated time. The ratio decidendi is that where a consistent view has been taken by a Coordinate Bench on a similar issue, and the State does not dispute it, the present case should follow the same path, allowing the petitioner an opportunity to rectify the non-compliance.

Facts

The petitioner, engaged in the electrical business, had their GST registration cancelled by an order dated 07.02.2023 due to non-submission of GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner's counsel submitted that a Coordinate Bench of the High Court had decided an identical controversy in WPMS No. 75 of 2023 and several other similar writ petitions. The learned Brief Holder for the State did not dispute this submission. Consequently, the Court decided the present writ petition in terms of the order passed in WPMS No. 75 of 2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-submission of returns for six consecutive months, without considering the possibility of revocation, is legally sustainable, particularly in light of previous High Court judgments on similar matters? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the issue is covered by a prior decision of a Coordinate Bench in WPMS No. 75 of 2023 and other similar writ petitions, implying that a more lenient approach or a specific procedure should be followed in such cases. They relied on the precedent set by the Coordinate Bench. Revenue's contention: The State, through its learned Brief Holder, did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding the applicability of the prior judgment, indicating an agreement that the matter is covered by the existing precedent.