Kundan Singh Dasila Contractor vs. Commissioner, State Goods And Service Tax Commissionerate
Held
The Court held that in view of the consensus between the parties and the precedent set in WPMS No. 475 of 2023, the writ petition could be decided accordingly. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order under Section 30 of the Central GST Act, 2017, within two weeks. Along with the revocation application, the petitioner was directed to furnish all pending GST returns and deposit the outstanding GST 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. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the core decision was to allow the petitioner to pursue the revocation process.
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 approached the High Court seeking relief. The State counsel conceded that the issue was identical to a previous case, WPMS No. 475 of 2023, and agreed that the present petition could be decided in terms of that order. The Court noted the consensus between the parties.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months, when explained by a communication gap with the tax consultant, warrants revocation under Section 30 of the Central GST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the cancellation was due to circumstances beyond their control, specifically a communication gap with their tax consultant, and that identical issues had been decided favorably by the Court in previous writ petitions, including WPMS No. 475 of 2023. They sought to avail the remedy of revocation of cancellation. Revenue's contention: The State counsel did not dispute the petitioner's submissions and fairly conceded that the writ petition could be decided in terms of the order passed in WPMS No. 475 of 2023, indicating no objection to allowing the petitioner to pursue revocation.
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. 424 of 2024
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Tarun Pande, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Tarun Lakhera, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled, due to non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The explanation offered by petitioner is that due to communication gap between him and tax consultant, engaged by petitioner, GST returns could not be filed in time.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that identical controversy has been decided by this Court in WPMS No. 475 of 2023 and many other similar writ petitions. This submission is not disputed by Mr. Tarun Lakhera, learned State Counsel, and he, in fact, fairly submits that the writ petition can be decided in terms of the order passed in WPMS No. 475 of 2023. 5. In view of consensus between the parties that matter is covered by the order passed in Writ Petition No. 475 of 2023 (M/S), present writ petition is also decided in terms of the said orde
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.