M/S El Interio vs. Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate
Facts
The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of his GST registration, which was ordered on 28.02.2023. The cancellation was initiated due to the petitioner's failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months. A show-cause notice was issued, but the petitioner failed to file a reply. The petitioner attributes this failure to a communication gap with his tax consultant. The petitioner relies on a previous judgment by the same High Court in WPMS No. 3187 of 2022, arguing that the present case involves an identical issue.
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty granted to the petitioner to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order under Section 30 of the CGST Act read with Rule 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 and furnish all previously unsubmitted returns. Furthermore, the petitioner must deposit all pending dues. If the application is filed within the stipulated time, the competent authority is directed to consider the petitioner's application for revocation of the cancellation order within the subsequent two weeks. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, as it provided a clear path for the petitioner to seek revocation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner's GST registration, cancelled for non-filing of returns for six months, should be revoked based on the grounds presented and in light of a previous High Court judgment. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of Section 30 of the CGST Act and Rule 23 of the CGST Rules. The petitioner argued that due to a communication gap with his tax consultant, returns and the reply to the show-cause notice were not filed in time. He contended that since an identical issue was decided in WPMS No. 3187 of 2022, the present petition should be disposed of similarly. The respondents, represented by counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's submission.
Sections Cited
Section 30, Rule 23
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
WPMS No. 468 of 2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
(1) Mr. Hemant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2) Ms. Shakshi Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondents.
(3) Petitioner is aggrieved by cancellation of his GST registration vide order dated 28.02.2023. 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.
(4) 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. 3187 of 2022. He, thus, submits that since identical issue was decided in the said judgment, therefore, the present writ petition be also decided in terms of the said judgmen
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.