Ramesh Singh Contractor vs. Commissioner, State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Held

The Court noted the consensus between the parties that the matter was covered by the order passed in Writ Petition No. 475 of 2023. Consequently, the present writ petition was also decided in terms of the said order. The petitioner was granted 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 was required to furnish all the GST returns that were not submitted and deposit the outstanding dues of Goods and Service Tax. The Court directed that if the application was made within the stipulated time, the competent authority shall consider the petitioner's application and pass an appropriate order as per law within four weeks thereafter. No issue was expressly left undecided.

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 filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the cancellation order. The revenue, represented by the State Counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's submission that a similar controversy had been decided by the same Court in WPMS No. 475 of 2023 and other similar writ petitions. The State 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 GST registration cancellation, due to non-filing of returns for six consecutive months, is sustainable in light of the explanation provided by the petitioner and the precedent set by this Court in similar matters? (Question of law and fact, turning on the provisions related to GST registration cancellation and revocation). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the cancellation was due to a communication gap with their tax consultant and that identical controversies have been decided by this Court in WPMS No. 475 of 2023 and other similar writ petitions. They relied on the principle that such cancellations, when explained and rectified, should be revoked. Revenue's contention: The State Counsel did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding the precedent. They fairly submitted that the writ petition could be decided in terms of the order passed in WPMS No. 475 of 2023, indicating agreement with the petitioner's position on the procedural outcome.