Shailendra Singh Bohra vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Facts

The petitioner, Shailendra Singh Bohra, a proprietorship firm dealing in works contract, had its GST registration cancelled by respondent no. 2 on August 18, 2023, for non-filing of GST returns. The petitioner contended that the cancellation order was non-speaking and vague. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay any outstanding GST, penalty, and interest. The petitioner sought to quash the cancellation order and permit them to file an application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner also pointed out that a similar controversy was decided by the High Court in a previous writ petition.

Held

The Court held that the matter was covered by a previous order of the High Court in WPMS No. 2650 of 2024, and in view of the consensus between the parties, the writ petition was decided in terms of that order. 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 directed 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 thereafter. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of non-speaking cancellation orders for non-filing of returns, the High Court may permit revocation upon the taxpayer's undertaking to clear all dues and file pending returns, referencing prior judgments on similar issues.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration, vide order dated 18.08.2023, is liable to be quashed as being non-speaking and vague, and whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, given their readiness to pay all dues? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was non-speaking and vague. They are ready to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. They relied on a previous judgment of the High Court in WPMS No. 2650 of 2024 dealing with an identical controversy. Revenue's arguments: The learned State Counsel did not oppose the petitioner's submissions.