Mohammad Ayub vs. Superintendent CGST

Facts

The petitioner, Mohammad Ayub, is a taxable person registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. His GST registration was cancelled by an order dated 06.05.2024. The cancellation was based on a show cause notice dated 05.04.2024, which indicated that the petitioner had failed to furnish GST returns for six consecutive months. Aggrieved by this cancellation order, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the delay in filing returns led to the cancellation and sought disposal of the petition in terms of a previous order by a Coordinate Bench of the same High Court.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court in Writ Petition (M/B) No.158 of 2025, dated 17.04.2025. The Court permitted the petitioner to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order under Section 30 of The Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The Court directed that if the petitioner files such an application and deposits the outstanding tax dues, along with any applicable tax penalty and interest, within two weeks from the date of the order, the competent authority shall consider the petitioner's request for revocation of the cancellation order in accordance with the law within four weeks. The reasoning was based on the precedent set by the Coordinate Bench and the respondent's lack of objection.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-furnishing of returns for six consecutive months is justified, and if the petitioner is entitled to seek revocation of the cancellation order under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, considering the delay in filing returns. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the cancellation of his GST registration was due to some delay in filing returns. He relied on a judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court on 17.04.2025 in Writ Petition (M/B) No.158 of 2025, and requested that the present petition be disposed of in a similar manner. Respondent's contention: The learned counsel for the respondent/GST fairly submitted that they had no objection if the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the judgment cited by the petitioner's counsel.