Manpreet Engineering And Construction Through Its Partner Avtar Singh vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Commissioner Deptt Of State Tax

Held

The Court strongly disapproved of the approach taken by the petitioner in impleading private respondents and seeking directions for payment of dues in writ petitions primarily challenging GST registration cancellation. The petitioner's counsel, on instructions, sought permission to withdraw the writ petitions. Consequently, the Court refrained from imposing exemplary costs and dismissed all the writ petitions as withdrawn. The Court did not make any specific finding on the validity of the GST registration cancellation order itself, as the petitions were withdrawn before adjudication on that issue. The issue of directing private respondents to pay dues was also not decided on merits due to the withdrawal.

Facts

The petitioner, Manpreet Engineering and Construction Company, filed multiple writ petitions challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The cancellation, dated October 31, 2018, was based on the ground of non-filing of GST returns for over six months. The petitioner also impleaded private respondents, Tata Steel Limited and Thermax Limited, and sought directions for them to pay outstanding dues for various tax periods. The State respondents, including the Commissioner of State Tax and other tax authorities, objected to the petitioner's prayer. The private respondents also strongly objected, with their counsel suggesting that certain actions by the petitioner might constitute offenses under the GST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration vide order dated 31.10.2018, reference no. ZA201018010898Q, is valid, considering it was based on non-filing of returns for more than six months? 2. Whether this Court can direct private respondents (Tata Steel Limited and Thermax Limited) to pay admitted outstanding dues to the petitioner for different tax periods, as sought by the petitioner? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought to challenge the cancellation of its GST registration and, in addition, prayed for directions to private respondents to clear outstanding dues. The petitioner's counsel, on instructions, sought permission to withdraw the petitions. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondent State authorities strongly objected to the petitioner's prayer, particularly the direction sought against private respondents. They did not explicitly argue on the validity of the cancellation order itself in the provided text, but their objection to the overall prayer implies disagreement with the petitioner's position. Private Respondents' Contention: The private respondents strongly objected to the prayer, with their counsel submitting that certain acts by the petitioner could amount to offenses under the GST Act.