Ganeshkripa Infradeveloper Private Limited vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate
Held
The Court noted the consensus between the parties that the matter was covered by the order passed in Writ Petition No. 424 of 2024. 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 any outstanding Goods and Service Tax dues. The Court directed that if the application was made within the stipulated time, the competent authority shall consider it and pass an appropriate order as per law within four weeks thereafter. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Facts
The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of his GST registration, an order passed on 27.02.2023 by the revenue authority. 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 himself and his tax consultant. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment of the High Court in WPMS No. 424 of 2024, arguing that the present case involves an identical issue. The State counsel agreed that the controversy was similar and could be decided based on the aforementioned judgment.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months, due to a communication gap with the tax consultant, warrants revocation, considering the precedent set by this Court in WPMS No. 424 of 2024? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue in the present writ petition is identical to the one decided in WPMS No. 424 of 2024, and therefore, the present petition should be decided in terms of that judgment. The petitioner's explanation for non-filing was a communication gap with his tax consultant. Revenue/State's Contention: The State counsel submitted that the controversy involved in the petition is similar to the one in WPMS No. 424 of 2024, and thus, the instant writ petition can be decided in terms of the judgment rendered in that case.
Sections Cited
Section 30
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Sl. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
WPMS No. 1221 of 2024
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Rajeev Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Petitioner is aggrieved by cancellation of his GST registration, vide order dated 27.02.2023. The ground taken for cancelling his registration is non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The explanation offered by petitioner is that due to communication gap between him and tax consultant, engaged by petitioner, GST returns could not be filed in time.
Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon judgment dated 28.02.2024 rendered by this Court in WPMS No. 424 of 2024. He submits that since identical issue has been decided in the aforesaid writ petition, therefore, the present writ petition can be decided in terms of the said judgment.
Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, learned State Counsel submits that the controversy involved in the petition is similar, therefore, the instant writ petition can be decided in ter
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.