Ampro Chemicials Gstin Lotous vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate Dehhradun

Held

The Court held that the matter was covered by the order passed in WPMS No. 75 of 2023, to which both parties consented. The Court directed that the petitioner would 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 Goods and Service Tax dues. If the application is made within the stipulated time, 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 Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, as it disposed of the matter based on the consensus and precedent.

Facts

The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of their GST registration by the State GST Department. The cancellation order, dated 02.03.2022, did not clearly state the reason for cancellation. The State Counsel, upon instruction, informed the Court that the registration was cancelled due to the petitioner's failure to file GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner sought to quash the cancellation order and permit them to file an application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the UK GST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay all balance tax, interest, and late fees.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months, without a clear show cause notice or opportunity to be heard, is sustainable in law, considering the petitioner's willingness to rectify the non-compliance? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and relevant GST provisions). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was not clear about the cause for cancellation. They relied on the fact that identical controversies have been decided by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court in WPMS No. 75 of 2023 and other similar writ petitions, implying that a lenient approach might be taken. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue, through the State Counsel, stated that the registration was cancelled for non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The Revenue did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding the precedent set by WPMS No. 75 of 2023 and fairly submitted that the writ petition could be decided in terms of that order.