Lalit Hotel And Fal Sanrakshan Udyog vs. Commissioner

Held

The Court decided that the writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the order passed in WPMS No.643 of 2024, given the consensus between the parties that the matter was covered by the said order. The petitioner was granted liberty to file 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 pending GST returns and deposit the 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 the application being filed. The ratio decidendi is that a GST registration cancellation for non-filing of returns can be revoked if the assessee takes prompt steps to file pending returns, deposit dues, and apply for revocation within a stipulated time, especially when a precedent exists for such relief.

Facts

The petitioner, a taxable person registered under the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, had their GST registration cancelled on June 3, 2023. The cancellation was based on the ground of non-filing of GST returns for three consecutive tax periods. The petitioner attributed this lapse to a communication gap with their tax consultant. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this cancellation order. The respondents, represented by the Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand, acknowledged that the controversy was identical to a previously decided writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the GST registration cancellation, on the grounds of non-filing of returns for three consecutive periods, is sustainable when the petitioner attributes the non-filing to a communication gap with their tax consultant? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the cancellation was based on a technical ground and sought to rectify the situation by filing the pending returns and paying outstanding dues. They relied on a previous judgment of the Court in WPMS No.643 of 2024, dated March 13, 2024, and requested the present petition be decided in terms of that order. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that the controversy was identical to the one decided in the aforesaid writ petition and had no objection to the present petition being decided in terms of the previous judgment.