Ashirwad Enterprises And Screening Plant vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Held

The Court decided to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the order passed in WPMS No. 75 of 2023 (M/S). The petitioner was granted liberty to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order within two weeks from the date of the order. Along with this application, the petitioner was required to furnish all the GST returns that were not submitted and deposit any outstanding dues of Goods and Service Tax. The Court directed that if the application was made within the stipulated time, the competent authority shall consider the petitioner's application and pass an appropriate order, in accordance with the law, within four weeks thereafter. The reasoning was based on the consensus between the parties that the matter was covered by a previous order of a Coordinate Bench.

Facts

The petitioner, a taxable person registered under the Uttarakhand GST Act, had their GST registration cancelled on December 9, 2022. 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 filed a writ petition challenging this cancellation order. The State did not dispute the petitioner's submission that a similar controversy had been decided by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court in WPMS No. 75 of 2023 and other similar writ petitions.

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 revocation, considering previous High Court judgments on similar matters? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was based on a technical ground and that an identical controversy had been decided by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court in WPMS No. 75 of 2023 and other similar writ petitions. They relied on the principle that such matters have been resolved favorably in prior cases. Revenue's Contention: The learned Brief Holder for the State did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding the existence of prior judgments by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court on identical controversies. This implies an acceptance that the present case is covered by those precedents.