Sundarpal vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Held

The Court noted the consensus between the parties that the matter was covered by the order passed in Writ Petition No. 424 of 2024. Consequently, 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 from the date of the order. Along with the revocation application, the petitioner was directed to furnish all the GST returns that were not submitted and to deposit the outstanding Goods and Service Tax dues. The competent authority was directed to consider the petitioner's application and pass an appropriate order as per law within four weeks of receiving the application, provided it was filed within the stipulated time. No specific issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of their GST registration, ordered on February 21, 2023, by the respondent authority. The cancellation was based on the ground of non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner attributed this lapse to a communication gap with their 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 consented to the present petition being decided in terms of the earlier 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, considering a prior judgment on an identical issue (turning on the interpretation and application of relevant provisions concerning registration cancellation and revocation). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since the issue in the present writ petition is identical to that decided in WPMS No. 424 of 2024 by this Court, the present petition should be decided in terms of the said judgment. They relied on the aforementioned judgment as precedent. Revenue/State's contention: The learned State Counsel, on instructions, submitted that the controversy involved in both petitions is similar, and therefore, the instant writ petition can be decided in terms of the judgment rendered in WPMS No. 424 of 2024. They did not present any opposing arguments.