The Soaring Kites Paragliding vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Held

The Court held that the matter was covered by a previous order in Writ Petition No. 424 of 2024 (M/S). Consequently, the present writ petition was also 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 Central GST Act within two weeks. Along with the 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. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, a taxable person registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, had their GST registration cancelled on 12.06.2023. The cancellation 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 sought relief by relying on a previous judgment of the High Court in WPMS No.850 of 2023, arguing that the present case was identical. The respondents, represented by the State of Uttarakhand, agreed that the controversy was the same as in the cited writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration on the ground of non-filing of returns for six consecutive months, due to a communication gap with the tax consultant, warrants revocation, considering the petitioner's reliance on a previous High Court judgment. (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 29(2) and Section 30 of the Central GST Act, 2017). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that their case was identical to the one decided in WPMS No.850 of 2023 and therefore, the present writ petition should be decided in terms of that judgment. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that since the controversy involved in this writ petition was identical to the one decided in the aforesaid writ petition, they had no objection if the petition was decided in terms of the previous judgment.