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

Held

The Court strongly disapproved of the petitioner's approach in impleading private respondents and seeking directions for payment of dues within writ petitions concerning GST registration cancellation. The Court noted that the petitioner, on instructions, sought permission to withdraw the writ petitions. Consequently, the Court, refraining from imposing exemplary costs, dismissed all the writ petitions as withdrawn. The specific validity of the GST registration cancellation order and the issue of outstanding dues from private respondents were 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. Notably, the petitioner also impleaded private respondents, Tata Steel Limited and Thermax Limited, seeking a direction for them to pay outstanding dues for various tax periods. The private respondents objected to this prayer, suggesting the petitioner's actions might constitute offences under the GST Act. The State respondents also objected to the petitioner's prayer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration vide order dated 31.10.2018, referencing ZA201018010898Q, is valid, considering the grounds of non-filing of returns for more than six months. 2. Whether the High Court can direct private respondents (Tata Steel Limited and Thermax Limited) to pay admitted outstanding dues to the petitioner for different tax periods in these writ petitions. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought to set aside the cancellation of its GST registration and, additionally, prayed for a direction to the private respondents to clear outstanding dues. The petitioner later sought to withdraw the petitions. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondent State objected to the petitioner's prayer, particularly the direction sought against private respondents. The private respondents also strongly objected, indicating potential offences under the GST Act by the petitioner.