Autolite Manufacturing Limited vs. State Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the matter is covered by the order passed in Writ Petition No. 475 of 2023 (M/S) and decided the present writ petition in terms of that order. 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 pending GST returns and deposit the outstanding tax dues. The competent authority is directed to consider the petitioner's application and pass an appropriate order as per law within four weeks of receiving the application, provided it is filed within the stipulated time. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the primary focus was on providing a procedural path for the petitioner to rectify the cancellation and clear dues.

Facts

The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled by the revenue authority due to non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner attributed this to a communication gap with their tax consultant. The petitioner argued that this situation is identical to other writ petitions previously decided by the High Court. The revenue, however, contended that while the show cause notice cited non-filing of returns, other documents indicated substantial tax dues of ₹1,58,58,312/- against the petitioner, which had matured into a demand. The revenue suggested that the petitioner had a remedy to challenge the determined tax liability before the Assessing Authority, making the present case distinct from those cited by the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns, despite a communication gap with the tax consultant, warrants intervention by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction, particularly when the revenue claims significant tax dues exist. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the issue is identical to previously decided writ petitions where the High Court had granted relief. They argued that the court's prior decisions in similar matters, such as WPMS No. 475 of 2023, provided a precedent for resolving the current dispute. The petitioner further submitted that in those decided cases, directions were given to the assessee to clear pending tax dues, implying that the present writ petition could also be disposed of on similar terms. Revenue's argument: The revenue argued that the present case is not identical to the ones cited by the petitioner. While acknowledging that non-filing of returns was a stated reason, the revenue highlighted the existence of a substantial tax liability of ₹1,58,58,312/-. The revenue asserted that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy to challenge this tax liability before the Assessing Authority, and therefore, the writ petition may not be the appropriate forum.