Saffire Infratech vs. Commissioner State Goods And Service Tax Dehradun Uttarakhand
Held
The Court held that the matter could be decided in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 475 of 2023, given the consensus between the parties. 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 Services Tax dues. The Court directed that if the application was made within the stipulated time, the competent authority would consider the application and pass an appropriate order as per law within four weeks thereafter. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Facts
The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled due to non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner attributed this lapse to a communication gap with their tax consultant. The petitioner argued that this issue had been decided by the High Court in a previous writ petition, WPMS No. 475 of 2023, and similar cases. The Standing Counsel for the State did not dispute this and agreed that the present writ petition could be decided in terms of the order in WPMS No. 475 of 2023. The amount in dispute is not specified. The procedural history involves the cancellation of GST registration and the subsequent filing of the present writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration on the ground of non-filing of returns for six consecutive months, where the petitioner attributes the lapse to a communication gap with their tax consultant, warrants interference by the High Court. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that an identical issue had been decided by the Court in Writ Petition No. 475 of 2023 and other similar writ petitions, implying that the cancellation was unjust or that a procedural remedy should be available. Revenue/State's contention: The Standing Counsel for the State did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding the precedent set in WPMS No. 475 of 2023 and fairly submitted that the writ petition could be decided in terms of that order.
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. 812 of 2024
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Faizul Haque and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. Jagdish Singh Bisht, Standing Counsel for the State.
GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground of non-filing of GST return 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 the petitioner submits that identical issue has been decided by this Court in Writ Petition No. 475 of 2023 and many other similar writ petitions. This submission is not disputed by Mr. Jagdish Singh Bisht, learned State Counsel, and he, in fact, fairly submits that the writ petition can be decided in terms of the order passed in WPMS No. 475 of 2023. 5. In view of consensus between the parties that matter is covered by the order passed in Writ Petition No. 475 of 2023 (M/S), present writ petit
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.