Betal Singh vs. Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, Betal Singh, engaged in the business of contract under the name ‘Betal Singh Rawat’, had his GST registration cancelled by the respondent State Tax Officer on May 9, 2023, due to non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner subsequently filed an application for revocation of this cancellation, which was rejected by an impugned order dated March 16, 2024. The petitioner, through his counsel, stated readiness to pay outstanding GST dues, penalties, and interest for the period of default. He also brought to the Court's attention that a similar issue was decided by this Court in WPMS No. 2285 of 2024.

Held

The Court held that in view of the consensus between the parties and the fact that the matter was covered by a previous order of this Court in WPMS No. 2285 of 2024, the writ petition could be decided in terms of that order. The petitioner was granted liberty to move a fresh application for revocation of the cancellation of GST registration under Section 30(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, within two weeks from the date of the order. Along with this application, the petitioner was directed to furnish all pending GST returns and deposit all 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 where a taxpayer is willing to rectify past non-compliance by filing returns and paying dues, and a similar precedent exists, the Court may direct the authority to consider the revocation application afresh.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's application for revocation of GST registration cancellation, filed after the initial rejection, should be considered on merits, given the petitioner's willingness to comply with statutory obligations? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 30(2) of the CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that he is now prepared to deposit all outstanding GST dues, including tax, interest, and penalty, for the period of default. He further contended that an identical issue has been decided by this Court in WPMS No. 2285 of 2024, and the present petition should be decided in terms of that order. Respondents' contentions: The learned State Counsel did not oppose the petitioner's submissions, implying agreement with the petitioner's stance and the applicability of the precedent case.