Ummed Singh Panwar vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate
Held
The Court held that the matter was covered by a previous order of the High Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 501 of 2023, and both parties agreed to this. Consequently, the present writ petition was decided in terms of that order. 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 must furnish all the pending GST returns and deposit any outstanding GST dues. The competent authority is directed to consider the petitioner's application and pass an appropriate order as per law within four weeks of its submission.
Facts
The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of his GST registration, which was ordered on 29.09.2022 by the State Tax Officer, Rishikesh-Sector 2. The cancellation was due to the petitioner's failure to file GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner attributes this non-filing to a communication gap with his tax consultant. The petitioner has filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging this cancellation order. The tax period for which returns were not filed is not explicitly stated, but it spans six consecutive months leading up to the cancellation.
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 intervention by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of provisions related to cancellation of registration and the principles of natural justice). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argues that the cancellation order is unjust and that the issue has been decided by this Court in similar writ petitions, specifically citing Writ Petition (M/S) No. 501 of 2023. He seeks to have the present petition decided in terms of the order passed in that precedent. Revenue's contention: The State Counsel does not dispute that an identical question was decided in the cited writ petition and agrees that the matter is covered by that order.
Sections Cited
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. 564 of 2024
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Petitioner is aggrieved by cancellation of his GST for non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The impugned order dated 29.09.2022 is enclosed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, which has been passed by State Tax Officer, Rishikesh-Sector
The explanation offered by petitioner for non-filing of GST returns is communication gap between him and his tax consultant.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that identical issue has been decided by this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 501 of 2023 and many other similar writ petitions. He, therefore, submits that present writ petition be decided in terms of order dated 28.02.2023 passed in the said writ petition.
Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, learned State Counsel does not dispute that the identical question was decided in the said writ petition.
In v
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.