M/S Surendra Singh Chauhan vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate
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 petitioner was granted liberty to file 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 directed to furnish all pending GST returns and deposit outstanding GST dues. The competent authority was directed to consider the petitioner's 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 on March 16, 2023, by the revenue authority due to non-filing of GST returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner explained this delay as a result of a communication gap with their tax consultant. The petitioner contended that a similar issue was decided by the High Court in WPMS No. 475 of 2023 and other connected writ petitions. The State counsel did not dispute this and agreed that the present petition could be decided based on the order in WPMS No. 475 of 2023. The amount in dispute is not specified.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns, when attributed to a communication gap with a tax consultant, warrants revocation, considering prior High Court judgments on similar matters? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 29 of the CGST Act and principles of natural justice). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the cancellation of registration was based on a technical ground and that a communication gap with their tax consultant led to the non-filing of returns. They relied on the precedent set by this Court in WPMS No. 475 of 2023 and other similar writ petitions, asserting that identical controversies have been decided in their favor. Revenue/State's arguments: The State counsel conceded that the matter was covered by the order passed in WPMS No. 475 of 2023 and did not dispute the petitioner's submissions.
Sections Cited
Section 29, 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. 739 of 2024
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
(1) Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. (2) Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. (3) GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 16.03.2023. The ground, taken for cancelling the registration, is non-filing of GST returns within prescribed period. 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. (4) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that identical controversy has been decided by this Court in WPMS No. 475 of 2023 and many other similar writ petitions. This submission is not disputed by Mr. Mohit Meulekhi, 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 Peti
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.