Lalit Singh Bathiyal Contractor vs. Commissioner, State Goods And Service Tax Commissionerate

Held

The Court held that the matter was covered by a previous order of a Coordinate Bench in WPMS No. 75 of 2023. The Court directed that the petitioner be at liberty 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 GST returns that were not submitted and deposit the outstanding tax and dues. The Competent Authority is directed to consider the petitioner's application and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law within four weeks thereafter. The reasoning is based on the consensus between the parties and the precedent set by the Coordinate Bench, allowing the petitioner an opportunity to regularize their compliance.

Facts

The petitioner, a contractor registered under the CGST Act, 2017, had their GST registration cancelled by an order dated 04.12.2023. The cancellation was due to the petitioner's failure to submit GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner sought to quash this cancellation order and sought a direction to permit them to file an application for revocation of the cancellation under Section 30 of the UKGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. The State did not dispute the petitioner's submissions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-submission of returns for six consecutive months, when the petitioner is ready to pay all dues, warrants interference by this Court under its writ jurisdiction, particularly in light of previous judgments on similar matters? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 29(2) and Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a Coordinate Bench of this Court had decided identical controversies in WPMS No. 75 of 2023 and other similar writ petitions. They were ready to pay all balance tax, interest, and late fees and sought permission to file an application for revocation of the cancellation under Section 30 of the Act. Revenue's contention: The learned Brief Holder for the State did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding the applicability of previous judgments.