M/S Yashika Herbal Agrotech Having Its Office vs. Commissioner State Goods And Service Tax
Held
The Court held that the matter was covered by the order passed in Writ Petition No. 501 of 2023 (M/S). The Court directed the petitioner 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 any outstanding tax and dues. The Competent Authority is then directed to consider the petitioner's application and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law within four weeks of receiving the application, provided it is filed within the stipulated time. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
Facts
The petitioner, a taxable entity registered under the Uttarakhand GST Act, is aggrieved by the cancellation of its GST registration. The cancellation order, dated 28.10.2022, was issued solely on the ground of non-submission of GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner argued that a similar issue had been decided by the High Court in WPMS No. 501 of 2023 and other similar writ petitions. This contention was not disputed by the State. The Court heard learned counsel for both parties regarding the matter.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-submission of GST returns for six consecutive months, without considering the petitioner's right to apply for revocation, is legally sustainable, particularly in light of previous High Court judgments on identical issues? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, potentially touching upon Section 29 of the CGST Act and Section 30 of the CGST Act). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the issue is covered by previous decisions of the High Court in WPMS No. 501 of 2023 and other similar writ petitions, implying that the cancellation was premature or that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to rectify the non-compliance. Revenue/State's contention: The learned Brief Holder for the State did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding the applicability of previous High Court orders.
Sections Cited
Section 29, 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.1000 of 2023 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner is a taxable entity, who is registered under Uttarakhand G.S.T. Act. Petitioner is aggrieved by cancellation of his GST registration. The impugned cancellation order dated 28.10.2022 is on record as annexure no. 4 to the writ petition. The sole ground for cancelling petitioner’s GST registration is non- submission of GST returns for six consecutive months.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that identical controversy has been decided by this Court in WPMS No. 501 of 2023 and many other similar writ petitions.
This submission is not disputed by learned Brief Holder for the State.
In view of consensus between the parties that matter is covered by the order passed in Writ Petition No. 501 of 2023 (M/S), present writ petition is also decided in terms of the said
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.