Kiran Enterprises Gstin vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Facts

The petitioner, Kiran Enterprises, a proprietorship firm dealing in works contract and registered under the CGST Act, 2017, had its GST registration cancelled by Respondent No. 2 on January 15, 2024. The reason for cancellation was the petitioner's failure to file GST returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner sought to quash this cancellation order and permit them to file an application for revocation of the GSTIN. The petitioner stated readiness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and any imposed penalty. The petitioner's counsel cited an identical controversy decided by the High Court in a previous writ petition, a submission not opposed by the respondents.

Held

The Court held that the matter was 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 and dues. The Competent Authority is directed to consider the petitioner's application and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law within four weeks of its submission. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided. The ratio is that where a petitioner is willing to regularize GST compliance and pay dues, and a similar case has been decided by the High Court, the cancellation order can be set aside subject to prompt compliance with statutory requirements for revocation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns for six months is sustainable, considering the petitioner's willingness to regularize their compliance and pay dues? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 29(2) and Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they are now prepared to pay all outstanding GST returns for the six-month period, along with any applicable interest and late fees. They relied on the principle that genuine efforts to regularize compliance should be considered. They also pointed to a previous High Court decision in WPMS No. 2285 of 2024 dealing with a similar issue. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents did not oppose the petitioner's submissions or the relief sought, indicating a consensus on the matter.