Shree Vinayak Associates vs. Chief Commissioner
Held
The Court noted the consensus between the parties that the matter was covered by a previous order in WPMS No. 1014 of 2024. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of that order. The petitioner was granted liberty to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order under Section 30 of the CGST Act read with Rule 23 of the CGST Rules. Such an application must be filed within two weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner is required 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 is directed to decide the revocation application within two weeks of its filing, provided it is filed within the stipulated time.
Facts
The petitioner, a taxable person registered under the Central GST Act, is challenging the cancellation of their GST registration. The order of cancellation was passed on March 10, 2023, by the Superintendent, Central GST, Bageshwar. The stated reason for cancellation was the non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner attributed this lapse to a communication gap with their tax consultant. The respondents, represented by their counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's submission that a similar issue had been decided by this Court in another writ petition, WPMS No. 1014 of 2024.
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 interference by this Court under its writ jurisdiction, considering the availability of statutory remedies? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the issue is identical to one decided by this Court in WPMS No. 1014 of 2024 and that the petition can be disposed of in terms of that order. The petitioner's explanation for non-filing was a communication gap with their tax consultant. Revenue's contention: The counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that the writ petition could be decided in terms of the order passed in WPMS No. 1014 of 2024, acknowledging the similarity of the controversy.
Sections Cited
Section 30, Rule 23
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
WPMS 1515/2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Singh, Advocate, i/b Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the respondents. (2) Petitioner is a taxable person registered under Central GST Act. Petitioner is aggrieved by cancellation of his GST registration, vide order dated 10.3.2023, passed by Superintendent, Central GST, Bageshwar. The ground taken for cancelling his registration is non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The explanation offered by petitioner is that due to communication gap between him and the tax consultant hired by him, GST returns could not be filed in time. (3) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that identical controversy has been decided by this Court in WPMS No. 1014 of 2024. This submission is not disputed by learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and she fairly submits that the writ petition can be decided in terms of the order passed in WPMS No. 1014 of 2024. (4) In view
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.