Gagan Collections Gstin vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax Commissionerate
Facts
The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of his GST registration, which was ordered on 13.09.2023. A show-cause notice had been issued indicating that the registration was liable for cancellation due to the petitioner's failure to furnish returns for six consecutive 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. 3187 of 2022, arguing that the present case involved an identical issue.
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order under Section 30 of the CGST Act read with Section 23 of the CGST Rules. The Court directed that such an application must be filed within two weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner was also instructed to comply with all conditions stipulated in Section 30 of the CGST Act, including furnishing all pending returns and depositing all outstanding dues. The Court further directed that if the application for revocation is filed within the stipulated time, the competent authority shall consider it within the next two weeks. The reasoning is based on the precedent set in WPMS No. 3187 of 2022, which dealt with a similar issue, and the respondents' non-dispute of the petitioner's submission.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for failure to file returns for a continuous period of six months, without considering the reasons for non-filing and the possibility of revocation, is sustainable under the CGST Act and 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 by this Court in WPMS No. 3187 of 2022, the present petition should be decided in terms of that judgment. The respondents, represented by their counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding the identical nature of the issue and the precedent relied upon.
Sections Cited
Section 30, Section 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. 675 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 13.09.2023. 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.