Ms Shanti Devi Manral vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shanti Devi Manral, a proprietorship firm engaged in the supply of services and registered under the CGST Act, 2017, had its GST registration cancelled by Respondent No. 2 on May 31, 2021, due to non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner sought to quash this cancellation order, offering to pay all outstanding GST, interest, and any imposed penalties. The petitioner also requested permission to submit a representation to Respondent No. 2 for reconsideration of the cancellation order and for directions to consider the application in accordance with the law. The petitioner highlighted that an identical controversy was previously decided by the High Court in WPMS No. 2285 of 2024.

Held

The Court held that the matter was covered by a previous order passed in WPMS No. 2285 of 2024. The petitioner was granted liberty to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order under Section 30(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, within two weeks. Along with this application, the petitioner was required to furnish all pending GST returns and deposit any outstanding tax and dues. The Competent Authority was directed to consider the petitioner's application and pass an appropriate order as per law within four weeks of receiving it. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of these directions. The ratio decidendi is that a GST registration cancellation for non-filing of returns can be revoked if the taxpayer complies with all pending statutory obligations and files an application for revocation within the stipulated time, subject to the Competent Authority's decision in accordance with law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns for six months is liable to be quashed, given the petitioner's willingness to pay outstanding dues and penalties? (Question of law and fact, turning on the provisions related to cancellation of registration and revocation of cancellation under the CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since they are now prepared to clear all pending GST dues, interest, and late fees, the cancellation order should be quashed. They relied on the principle that the court can grant relief when the petitioner demonstrates readiness to comply with statutory obligations. They also pointed to a previous judgment of the High Court in WPMS No. 2285 of 2024 dealing with a similar issue. Revenue's contention: The respondents did not oppose the petitioner's submission regarding the identical controversy being decided in a previous writ petition.