Jogendar Veer Singh vs. State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Jogendar Veer Singh, had his GST registration cancelled. He applied for revocation, but his application was rejected by the State Tax Officer via an order dated 11.04.2023. The rejection was based on the petitioner's alleged failure to reply to a notice dated 09.02.2023. This notice questioned a difference of ₹2.30 lakh in GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B for the financial year 2022-23. The petitioner contended that there was no actual difference in the ITC claim and that the net difference was 'Nil'. He claimed his explanation was accepted by the department, as evidenced by Annexure-3 to his supplementary affidavit. The petitioner sought liberty to approach the department to revisit the rejection order.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the department by way of a fresh representation. This representation should include evidence demonstrating that the alleged demand was ultimately dropped, along with a true attested copy of the instant order. The petitioner must file this representation within two weeks from the date of the order. Upon receipt of such a representation, the Proper Officer is directed to consider it within the subsequent three weeks. The Court's decision was influenced by the petitioner's assertion that there was no actual difference in the ITC claim and that his explanation was accepted, coupled with the Revenue's lack of objection to the petitioner seeking further consideration from the department. The specific provisions under which the initial rejection or the subsequent consideration would occur were not explicitly detailed in the judgment, but the implication is that the department will re-examine the matter based on the provided evidence.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for revocation of GST registration was justified, considering the petitioner's contention that there was no actual difference in the ITC claim between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B for the financial year 2022-23 and that his explanation was accepted by the department. Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that there was no actual difference in the ITC claim between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B for FY 2022-23, and the net difference was 'Nil'. The petitioner claimed that this explanation was accepted by the department, as supported by Annexure-3 to their supplementary affidavit. Therefore, the rejection of the revocation application was erroneous. Revenue: Did not object to the petitioner's prayer for liberty to approach the department for revisiting the order rejecting the application for revocation.