M/S Corbett Yatra Tour And Travels vs. Commissioner Center Goods And Service Tax Dehradun

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Corbett Yatra Tour And Travels, a proprietorship firm registered under the CGST Act, 2017, had its GST registration cancelled by Respondent No. 2 (Superintendent, Central Goods and Service Tax) on September 11, 2023. The cancellation was due to the petitioner failing to file GST returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner, now ready to pay outstanding GST, interest, and any applicable penalty, sought to quash the cancellation order and to be permitted to file an application for revocation of the cancellation under Section 30 of the SGST Act, 2017. The petitioner also sought a direction for the respondent to consider this application.

Held

The Court held that the matter was covered by a previous order of the same High Court in WPMS No. 2285 of 2024. The Court directed that the petitioner be at liberty to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order under Section 30(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, within two weeks from the date of the order. Along with this application, the petitioner must furnish all pending GST returns and deposit the outstanding tax and other dues. Upon receipt of such an application within the stipulated period, the Competent Authority is directed to consider the petitioner's application and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law within four weeks thereafter. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an order quashing the cancellation of its GST registration dated September 11, 2023, considering its readiness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees? (Question of law turning on the discretion of the court and principles of natural justice). 2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to prefer an application under Section 30 of the SGST Act, 2017, for revocation of the cancellation of its GSTIN, and whether the respondent should be directed to consider such an application in accordance with law? (Question of law and procedure). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that it is ready to clear all its dues, including GST returns for the six-month period, penalty, and interest. It further argued that an identical controversy had been decided by the High Court in a previous writ petition (WPMS No. 2285 of 2024). Respondents' arguments: The learned counsel for the respondents did not oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.