Deepa Mamgai vs. Superintendent Central Goods And Services Tax
Facts
The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of his GST registration, vide an order dated 10.03.2023. A show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner stating that his GST registration was liable for cancellation due to failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner's counsel submitted that a communication gap with his tax consultant led to the delay in filing returns and responding to the show cause notice. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment by the same High Court in WPMS No. 165 of 2024, arguing that the present petition should be decided similarly.
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order under Section 30 of the CGST Act read with Section 23 of the CGST Rules. The petitioner was directed to file this application within two weeks from the date of the order. He was also required to comply with all conditions stipulated in Section 30 of the CGST Act, furnish all pending returns, and deposit all outstanding dues. The competent authority was directed to consider the petitioner's application for revocation within two weeks of its filing, provided it was filed within the stipulated time. The Court's decision was based on the petitioner's submission regarding a prior judgment with an identical issue, which the respondent did not dispute.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to apply for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, considering the circumstances presented. The petitioner argued that due to a communication gap with his tax consultant, he failed to file returns and respond to the show cause notice in time. He relied on a prior judgment of the High Court in WPMS No. 165 of 2024, where an identical issue was decided, and therefore, sought a similar decision in his case. The respondent, represented by their counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding the prior judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 30, Section 23
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Sl. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
WPMS No.971 of 2024
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Pankaj Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the respondent.
Petitioner is aggrieved by cancellation of his GST registration, vide order dated 10.03.2023. Earlier, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, in which, it was stated that his GST registration is liable to be cancelled, as he has failed to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that due to communication gap between petitioner and his tax consultant, return could not be filed in time, nor, the reply to show cause notice could be given on behalf of the petitioner. However, he relies upon a judgment rendered by this Court in WPMS No. 165 of 2024. He, thus, submits that since identical issue was decided in the said judgment, therefore, the present petition be also decided in terms of the said judgment.
Learned counsel for respondent does not dispute the said submission. 6.
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.