Ms Pentaa Realtors Private Limited vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Held

The Court held that since the issue involved in the present writ petition had already been decided in Writ Petition No. 850 of 2024, the present writ petition would be decided in terms of the judgment rendered in the said writ petition. The Court directed that the petitioner shall be at 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 must furnish all the GST returns that were not submitted and deposit the outstanding dues of Goods and Service Tax. If the application is made within the stipulated time, the competent authority shall consider the petitioner's application and pass an appropriate order as per law within four weeks thereafter. No specific finding was recorded on the merits of the cancellation order itself, as the decision was based on the precedent.

Facts

The petitioner, a taxable person registered under the Central GST Act, had their GST registration cancelled by respondent no. 2 on 16.11.2018. The cancellation was based on the ground of non-furnishing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner attributed the non-filing to a communication gap with their tax consultant. The petitioner brought to the court's attention that a similar issue had been decided by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 850 of 2024 and other similar writ petitions. The respondents' counsel indicated that while written instructions were received from the department, they were silent on whether the present case was covered by the aforementioned judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-furnishing of returns for six consecutive months, when attributed to a communication gap with a tax consultant, warrants revocation under the Central GST Act? 2. Whether the present writ petition should be decided in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 850 of 2024, given the identical issue involved? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the issue in the present writ petition is identical to that decided in Writ Petition No. 850 of 2024 and other similar petitions, and therefore, the present petition should be decided in terms of the judgment in WPMS No. 850 of 2024. The petitioner also provided an explanation for the non-filing of returns, citing a communication gap with their tax consultant. Revenue's contentions: The respondents' counsel stated that the written instructions from the department were silent on whether the present case was covered by the judgment in WPMS No. 850 of 2024.