Devendra Kumar Sharma vs. Assistant Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the matter was covered by the order passed in WPMS No. 475 of 2023, a fact that was not disputed by the revenue. The Court directed the petitioner 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 required to furnish all pending GST returns and deposit the outstanding GST dues. The Court further directed the competent authority to consider the petitioner's application and pass an appropriate order as per law within four weeks of its submission. The ratio decidendi is that where a High Court has consistently decided similar matters in favour of taxpayers facing GST registration cancellation due to reasons like consultant's negligence, and the revenue does not contest this precedent, the Court will grant a similar opportunity for revocation upon compliance with stipulated conditions.

Facts

The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled by the respondent authority due to non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner attributed this lapse to a communication gap with his tax consultant. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the cancellation order. The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's claim that similar controversies had been decided by the High Court in other writ petitions, including WPMS No. 475 of 2023. The revenue 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, 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 30 of the Central GST Act). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the cancellation was due to circumstances beyond his direct control (communication gap with consultant) and that the High Court had previously granted relief in identical situations, citing WPMS No. 475 of 2023 and other similar writ petitions. The petitioner sought a direction for the revocation of the cancellation order. Revenue's contention: The learned State Counsel did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding prior judgments and fairly conceded that the writ petition could be decided in terms of the order passed in WPMS No. 475 of 2023. The revenue did not present any counter-arguments against the petitioner's plea for revocation.