Ms Gold Sunshine Agro Tech Services Private Limited vs. The Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax
Facts
The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of his GST registration, ordered on 07.10.2022. A show-cause notice had been issued, stating that the registration was liable for cancellation due to the failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner's counsel submitted that a communication gap with the tax consultant led to the non-filing of returns and the failure to reply to the show-cause notice. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment by the same High Court in WPMS No. 345 of 2022, arguing for a similar decision in this case. The respondent's counsel did not dispute this submission.
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty 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. This application must be filed within two weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner is required to comply with all conditions stipulated in Section 30 of the CGST Act, including furnishing all pending returns and depositing all outstanding dues. If the application is filed within the stipulated timeframe, 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 explicitly leave any issue undecided, but the decision is conditional on the petitioner fulfilling the stated requirements.
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 by the petitioner and a prior High Court judgment. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of Section 29(2) of the CGST Act and Rule 21 of the CGST Rules, concerning the cancellation of registration. The petitioner argued that due to a communication gap with his tax consultant, returns and replies to show-cause notices were not filed, and sought relief based on a previous High Court judgment (WPMS No. 345 of 2022) dealing with a similar situation. The respondent did not contest the petitioner's submissions.
Sections Cited
Section 29, Section 30, Rule 21, Rule 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. 238 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 07.10.2022. 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 the 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. 345 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 judgment.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the re
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.