Sandeep Kumar Gstin (O5Dlmpk3952B2Z7) vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Dehradun

Held

The Court held that the matter was covered by its previous decision in WPMS No. 501 of 2023 and other similar writ petitions, a position not disputed by the State. Therefore, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of the said order. The petitioner was granted liberty to file 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 pending GST returns and deposit the outstanding tax and dues. The Competent Authority was directed to consider the petitioner's application and pass an appropriate order as per law within four weeks of its submission, provided it was filed within the stipulated time. No specific issue was expressly left undecided, as the matter was resolved based on prior precedent.

Facts

The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of their GST registration, an order dated 10.11.2022. The sole reason cited for the cancellation was the non-submission of GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner's counsel submitted that this issue has been previously decided by the High Court in WPMS No. 501 of 2023 and other similar writ petitions. This submission was not disputed by the learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Consequently, the parties reached a consensus that the present writ petition should also be decided in terms of the order passed in WPMS No. 501 of 2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration solely on the ground of non-submission of GST returns for six consecutive months, without considering other factors or providing an opportunity to rectify, is legally sustainable? (Question of law, potentially turning on principles of natural justice and relevant GST provisions). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue is identical to that decided in WPMS No. 501 of 2023 and other similar writ petitions, implying that the court's previous ruling should apply. They relied on the consensus reached with the State's counsel regarding the applicability of the prior order. Revenue/State's Contention: The State, through its learned Brief Holder, did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding the prior judgment. This indicates an implicit acceptance that the State's position would align with the outcome of the earlier case.