Mikrani Old Motor Parts vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate
Held
The Court held that in view of the consensus between the parties that the matter was covered by the order passed in Writ Petition No. 1030 of 2024, the present writ petition would also be decided 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 UKGST Act within two weeks. Along with this application, the petitioner was required to furnish all the GST returns that were not submitted and deposit any outstanding Goods and Service Tax dues. The competent authority was directed to consider the petitioner's application and pass an appropriate order as per law within four weeks of receiving the application, provided it was filed within the stipulated time.
Facts
The petitioner, a taxable person registered under the Uttarakhand GST Act, had their GST registration cancelled on February 17, 2023, due to 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 Writ Petition No. 1030 of 2024 and other similar writ petitions. The State's counsel did not dispute this submission and agreed that the present writ petition could be decided in terms of the order passed in WPMS No. 1030 of 2024.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months, when attributed to a communication gap with a tax consultant, warrants relief in light of previous High Court judgments on similar matters, specifically concerning Section 30 of the UKGST Act. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the present case is identical to Writ Petition No. 1030 of 2024 and other similar writ petitions decided by the Court. They sought to have their case decided in accordance with the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 1030 of 2024. Revenue/State's contention: The State's counsel fairly submitted that the writ petition could be decided in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 1030 of 2024, not disputing the petitioner's submission.
Sections Cited
Section 30
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
WPMS No. 1507 of 2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Ashish Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, Brief Holder for the State.
Petitioner is a taxable person registered under Uttarakhand GST Act. His GST registration has been cancelled vide order dated 17.02.2023 on the ground of non-filing of GST return for six consecutive months. The explanation offered by petitioner is that due to communication gap between him and tax consultant, engaged by petitioner, GST returns could not be filed in time.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that identical issue has been decided by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1030 of 2024 and many other similar writ petitions. Thus, he submits that the present writ petition may also be decided in terms of judgment dated 23.04.2024 rendered in the said writ petition.
This submission is not disputed by Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, learned counsel for the State, and he, in fact, fairly submits that the writ petition can be decided in t
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.