Ms Le Reve Valley vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate
Held
The Court noted the consensus between the parties 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 this 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 its submission, provided it was made within the stipulated time.
Facts
The petitioner, a taxable person registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, had their GST registration cancelled on 27.02.2023. The cancellation was based on the ground of non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner attributed this non-filing to a communication gap between themselves and their tax consultant. The petitioner sought relief by referring to a previous judgment of the High Court dated 04.04.2024 in WPMS No.850 of 2023, arguing that the present case was identical.
Key Issues
1. Whether the GST registration cancellation on the ground of non-filing of returns for six consecutive months, due to a communication gap with the tax consultant, warrants revocation. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the present writ petition should be decided in terms of the judgment dated 04.04.2024 rendered by the Court in WPMS No.850 of 2023, implying that the circumstances of their case were similar and merited similar relief. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, representing the revenue, fairly submitted that since the controversy in this writ petition was identical to that decided in the aforesaid writ petition, they had no objection if this writ petition was decided in terms of the earlier judgment.
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.1225 of 2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Paritosh Dalakoti, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the respondents.
Petitioner is a Taxable Person, who is registered under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. His G.S.T. registration has been cancelled on 27.02.2023, on the ground of non-filing of G.S.T. returns for six consecutive months. The explanation offered by petitioner is that, due to communication gap between petitioner and tax consultant, the G.S.T. returns could not be filled.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment dated 04.04.2024 rendered by this Court in WPMS No.850 of 2023 and he submits that present writ petition may be decided in terms of the said judgment.
Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that since the controversy involved in this writ petition is identical to the one decided in aforesaid writ petition, therefore, he has no objection, if this writ petition is dec
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.