M/S V P Enterprises vs. State Tax Officer

Held

The Court, in view of the consensus between the parties that the matter is covered by a previous order in Writ Petition No. 424 of 2024, decided the present writ petition 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, which was ordered on 13.12.2022. The reason cited for cancellation was the non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner attributed this lapse to a communication gap with 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, on instructions, agreed that the controversy was similar and that the instant petition could be decided in terms of 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 relief from the High Court. (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on the interpretation of provisions related to cancellation of registration and the principles of natural justice). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the issue in the present writ petition is identical to that decided in WPMS No. 424 of 2024 by this Court, 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, on instructions, submitted that the controversy involved in both petitions is similar, and thus, the instant writ petition can be decided in terms of the judgment rendered in WPMS No. 424 of 2024.