Gulab Singh vs. State Tax Officer State Goods And Services Tax

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 Court decided the present petition in terms of the said 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 the revocation application, the petitioner was directed to furnish all the GST returns that were previously not submitted and to deposit the outstanding dues of Goods and Service Tax. 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 the application was made within the stipulated time. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, a civil contractor registered under the CGST Act, had their GST registration cancelled by the Respondent No. 1 on 20.07.2022. The cancellation was for non-submission of GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner sought to quash the Show Cause Notice for Cancellation of Registration dated 20.07.2022 and the Order for Cancellation of Registration dated 20.07.2022, both issued by Respondent No. 1. The petitioner contended that an identical 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 learned Brief Holder for the State.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-submission of returns for six consecutive months, without considering the petitioner's right to seek revocation, is legally sustainable under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the matter was covered by a previous decision of a Coordinate Bench of the Court in WPMS No. 75 of 2023, implying that the cancellation order might be premature or that the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to rectify the non-compliance. The petitioner relied on the principle of consistency in judicial pronouncements. The revenue or State, through the learned Brief Holder, did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding the applicability of the previous judgment, indicating a consensus on the matter being covered by the cited precedent.