Virender Singh vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST Commissionerate Dehradun

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition was covered by the order passed in Writ Petition No. 75 of 2023 (M/S). Consequently, the writ petition was decided in terms of that order. The petitioner was 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 petitioner was required to furnish all the GST returns that were not submitted and deposit the outstanding tax and other dues. The Competent Authority was directed to consider the petitioner's application and pass an appropriate order as per law within four weeks of the application being filed, provided the application was made within the stipulated time. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, engaged in the manufacturing and sale of bricks, had its Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration cancelled by an order dated 17.09.2022. The cancellation was due to the non-submission of GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner sought to quash this cancellation order, stating readiness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. The petitioner also sought directions to allow its business to continue and prevent liquidation. The petitioner's counsel submitted that a similar controversy had been decided by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court in WPMS No. 75 of 2023 and other similar writ petitions. This submission was not disputed by the counsel for the State.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-submission of returns for six consecutive months, when the petitioner is ready to deposit outstanding dues and file returns, warrants intervention by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction, particularly in light of previous judgments by coordinate benches? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Section 30 of the Central GST Act, 2017). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the cancellation order should be quashed as they are prepared to rectify the non-compliance by paying all dues and filing the pending returns. They relied on the precedent set by a Coordinate Bench in WPMS No. 75 of 2023 and other similar writ petitions, suggesting a consistent approach by the Court in such matters. Revenue's arguments: The State did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding the applicability of previous judgments. Therefore, no specific arguments were recorded for the revenue.