Mohan Bahuguna vs. Assistant Commissioner
Facts
The petitioner, Mohan Bahuguna, proprietor of Bahuguna Photo Studio and Gift Center, is registered under the CGST Act, 2017, and operates as a service provider. The respondent, Assistant Commissioner, cancelled the petitioner's GST registration on August 7, 2023, due to non-filing of GST returns for a considerable period. The petitioner is now ready to pay all outstanding GST, penalties, and interest. The petitioner seeks to quash the cancellation order. The petitioner's counsel cited a previous identical case decided by the High Court, which the respondent did not oppose.
Held
The Court held that the matter is covered by a previous order of the High Court 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 must furnish all pending GST returns and deposit the outstanding tax, dues, and interest. The Competent Authority is directed to consider the petitioner's application and pass an appropriate order as per law within four weeks thereafter. The ratio decidendi is that a GST registration cancelled for non-filing of returns can be revoked if the taxpayer complies with all pending compliances and dues, as per statutory provisions and established judicial precedent.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns can be revoked upon the petitioner's readiness to pay outstanding dues and penalties, as per Section 30(2) of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they are ready to pay all outstanding GST, interest, and late fees. They relied on a previous judgment of the High Court in WPMS No. 2285 of 2024, which dealt with a similar situation, and sought quashing of the cancellation order. The petitioner's counsel stated that the respondent did not oppose this submission. Respondent's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondent's counsel, other than not opposing the petitioner's submission regarding the precedent.
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. 2937 of 2024
Mohan Bahuguna
....Petitioner Versus
Assistant Commissioner
.….Respondent
Present:- Mr. Pradeep Upreti, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. M.S. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State.
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner is a proprietor of Bahuguna Photo Studio and Gift Center having principal place of business at Bhimtal. Petitioner deals as a service provider. 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 the respondent vide order dated 07.08.2023 for non filing of the GST return for a considerable period.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that now the petitioner is ready to make the payment towards GST return as well as the penalty, if any, imposed by the respondent-department.
Petitioner has sought to issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the record of the case a
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.