Salman Qureshi Gstin vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax Commissionerate Dehradun
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order under Section 30 of the CGST Act read with Section 23 of the CGST Rules within two weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner was directed to comply with all conditions stipulated in Section 30 of the CGST Act, submit all pending returns, and deposit all outstanding dues. The Court further directed that if such an application is filed within the stipulated period, the Competent Authority shall consider it within the subsequent two weeks. The Court did not explicitly decide on the merits of the cancellation order itself but provided a procedural path for its potential revocation.
Facts
The petitioner, who runs a restaurant, had their GST registration cancelled by an order dated 16.08.2022 due to a failure to furnish returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner contended that their appointed accountant failed to inform them of the liability to file returns, leading to the default. The petitioner cited a similar controversy decided by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court in Writ Petition M/S No. 3187 of 2022 and requested the present petition be decided similarly. The respondents' counsel did not dispute this submission.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months, where the default was attributed to the accountant's negligence, warrants revocation? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the default was not willful but due to the negligence of their accountant, who failed to inform them of their return filing obligations. They relied on a previous judgment by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court in Writ Petition M/S No. 3187 of 2022, contending that the present case should be decided in terms of that precedent. Revenue's Argument: The learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding the similar controversy and the precedent relied upon.
Sections Cited
Section 30, Section 23
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. 345 of 2023
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Ashish Agarwal and Mr. Tarun Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondents.
Petitioner runs a Restaurant, which was registered under the provisions of Central GST Act, 2017. His registration has been cancelled vide order dated 16.08.2022 for his failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months. In para 6 of the writ petition, it is contended that the Accountant appointed by petitioner to look after GST related work did not inform the petitioner about his liability to file returns which led to default on the part of petitioner in submission of GST returns.
It is further contended by learned counsel for petitioner that Coordinate Bench of this Court has decided similar controversy in Writ Petition M/S No. 3187 of 2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition may also be decided in terms of the judgment rendered in said writ petit
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.