M/S Unique Security Solution Having Its Office vs. Commercial Tax Officer Department Of Goods And Service Tax
Held
The Court held that the matter was covered by the order passed in Writ Petition No. 75 of 2023 (M/S). Consequently, the present writ petition was also decided in terms of that order. The petitioners were 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 petitioners were directed to furnish all the GST returns that they had failed to submit and to deposit the outstanding tax and dues. The Competent Authority was directed to consider the petitioners' application and pass an appropriate order as per law within four weeks of the application being made, provided it was filed within the stipulated time.
Facts
The petitioners, a registered partnership firm engaged in consultancy services and one of its partners, had their GST registration cancelled by the State Tax Officer, GST, Sector-7, Dehradun, on January 3, 2022. The cancellation was due to non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioners contended that the COVID-19 pandemic prevented them from filing the returns on time. They also pointed out that a Coordinate Bench of the High Court had decided a similar controversy in WPMS No. 75 of 2023 and other related writ petitions. This submission was not disputed by the State.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns due to the COVID-19 pandemic is justified, considering the circumstances and previous judicial pronouncements? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 29 of the CGST Act and principles of natural justice). Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the non-filing of GST returns was attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and that identical issues had been decided favorably by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court in WPMS No. 75 of 2023 and other similar writ petitions. They relied on the principle that genuine difficulties caused by the pandemic should be considered. Revenue's contention: The State, through its learned Brief Holder, did not dispute the petitioners' submission regarding the covered nature of the controversy by the order in WPMS No. 75 of 2023.
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. 588 of 2023
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Tarun Lakhera, Brief Holder for the State/respondents.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner no. 1 is a registered partnership firm; while, petitioner no. 2 is one of the partners in the said firm. According to petitioners, the said firm is engaged in the business of providing consultancy services and is registered under Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The GST registration of petitioner- firm was cancelled by State Tax Officer, GST, Sector-7, Dehradun, vide order dated 03.01.2022 for non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months.
Learned counsel for petitioners contends that due to COVID-19 Pandemic, petitioners could not submit the GST returns in time. He further submits that identical controversy has been decided by Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPMS No. 75 of 2023
and many other similar writ petitions.
This submission is not disputed by
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.