Bhoopal Dutt Contractor Gstin vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate
Facts
The petitioner, Bhoopal Dutt, a proprietorship firm dealing in works contract and registered under the CGST Act, 2017, had its GST registration cancelled by respondent no. 2 on June 23, 2023. The cancellation was due to non-filing of GST returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the cancellation order, stating readiness to pay all outstanding GST, interest, and late fees. The petitioner also sought a direction for the respondent no. 2 to consider their representation. The petitioner highlighted that a similar controversy was decided by the High Court in WPMS No. 2650 of 2024.
Held
The Court held that the matter was covered by a previous order of the High Court in WPMS No. 2650 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 the outstanding dues of tax, interest, and penalty. 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 ratio decidendi is that a taxpayer who is ready to regularize their GST compliance by filing pending returns and paying dues can seek revocation of registration cancellation, subject to the statutory provisions and timelines.
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 readiness to deposit all outstanding dues, interest, and late fees? (Question of law and fact, turning on the provisions related to cancellation of registration and its revocation under the CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that they are prepared to clear all pending GST returns, along with any applicable penalty and interest. They relied on a previous order of the High Court in WPMS No. 2650 of 2024, which dealt with an identical controversy. Respondents' contentions: The learned State Counsel did not oppose the petitioner's submissions.
Sections Cited
Section 30(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3029 of 2024
Bhoopal Dutt
....Petitioner Versus
Commissioner and Others .….Respondents
Present:- Mr. Ashish Agarwal and Mr. Tarun Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondents.
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner is a proprietorship firm, who deals with works contract. Petitioner is registered under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the CGST Act, 2017”).
The registration of the petitioner has been cancelled by respondent no.2 vide order dated 23.06.2023 for non filing of the GST return for a continuous period of six months.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that now the petitioner is ready to make the payment towards GST returns for a period of six months as well as the penalty and interest, if any, imposed by the respondent-department.
Petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “i. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.