Himalay Green Infratech Private Limited vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate Dehradun

Held

The Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an identical controversy had been decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPMS No. 75 of 2023 and many other similar writ petitions, a submission which was not disputed by the learned Brief Holder for the State. In view of the consensus between the parties that the matter is covered by the order passed in writ petition No. 75 of 2023 (M/S), the present writ petition was also decided in terms of the said 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 the 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 thereafter, if the application was made within the stipulated time.

Facts

The petitioner, a private limited company registered under the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Act and engaged in the construction business, had its GST registration cancelled by an order dated 15.12.2022. The cancellation was due to the non-submission of GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner attributed this failure to a communication gap with its 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 GST registration of the petitioner, cancelled for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months, should be revoked, considering the explanation provided by the petitioner and the precedent set by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that an identical controversy had been decided by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court in WPMS No. 75 of 2023 and numerous other similar writ petitions. This submission was not disputed by the State. Revenue's contention: The learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding the precedent set by the Coordinate Bench.