Ms Abdul Rauf Contractor vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Held

The Court held that the writ petition could be decided in terms of the order passed in WPMS No. 501 of 2023, given the consensus between the parties. 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. If the application was made within the stipulated time, the competent authority was directed to consider the petitioner's application and pass an appropriate order as per law within four weeks thereafter. The ratio decidendi is that a GST registration cancelled for non-filing of returns can be revoked upon an application, furnishing of pending returns, and deposit of outstanding dues, provided the application is filed within the prescribed time and the authority considers it as per law.

Facts

The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of their Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration. The cancellation was based on the ground of non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner's counsel submitted that a similar controversy had been decided by the High Court in WPMS No. 501 of 2023 and other similar writ petitions. The counsel for the State did not dispute this submission and fairly agreed that the present writ petition could be decided in terms of the order passed in WPMS No. 501 of 2023. The parties reached a consensus that the matter was covered by the previous order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the GST registration, cancelled due to non-filing of returns for six consecutive months, can be restored upon compliance with certain conditions? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of Section 30 of the Central GST Act). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the issue was identical to those decided in WPMS No. 501 of 2023 and other similar writ petitions, implying that a favorable outcome based on precedent was expected. Revenue/State's contention: The State, through its counsel, fairly conceded that the writ petition could be decided in terms of the order passed in WPMS No. 501 of 2023, indicating agreement with the petitioner's submission regarding the applicability of the prior judgment.