Rajesh Singh Kutiyal vs. State Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition could be decided in terms of the order passed in WPMS No. 475 of 2023, given the consensus between the parties. The Court directed the petitioner 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 must furnish all the GST returns that were not submitted and deposit the outstanding Goods and Service Tax dues. Upon receipt of the application within the stipulated time, the competent authority is directed to consider the petitioner's application and pass an appropriate order as per law within four weeks thereafter. The ratio decidendi is that where a consistent view has been taken by the High Court in similar matters, and the revenue does not dispute it, the Court can grant relief by directing the petitioner to follow the prescribed procedural remedy for revocation, subject to compliance with conditions.

Facts

The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled by the revenue authorities 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 approached the High Court seeking relief against the cancellation order. The revenue, represented by the State Counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's submission that a similar controversy had been decided by the Court in WPMS No. 475 of 2023 and other similar writ petitions. The State Counsel fairly submitted that the present writ petition could be decided in terms of the order passed in WPMS No. 475 of 2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months, where the petitioner attributes the lapse to a communication gap with their tax consultant, warrants intervention by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction, particularly when similar matters have been decided by this Court? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation and application of relevant GST provisions concerning registration cancellation and revocation). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the cancellation was due to circumstances beyond their control (communication gap with consultant) and that the issue was covered by previous judgments of the High Court in identical matters, specifically WPMS No. 475 of 2023. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through the State Counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's submissions and fairly conceded that the writ petition could be decided in terms of the order passed in WPMS No. 475 of 2023, indicating an agreement on the procedural path forward.