Shri Ram Bharat Mines vs. Superintendent Central Goods And Service Tax

Facts

The petitioner challenged an order dated 07.03.2022, which cancelled their GST registration. The cancellation was reportedly due to non-filing of returns. The petitioner stated that they have since deposited all pending returns along with applicable penalties. Both the petitioner and the respondent (revenue) agreed that the matter was covered by a previous order of the Court dated 19.09.2023, passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No.2620 of 2023, Chandan Singh vs. Superintendent Central Goods and Service Tax Nainital. The respondent also confirmed that the petitioner had to deposit all dues and penalties.

Held

The Court decided the matter in terms of its previous order dated 19.09.2023, passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No.2620 of 2023, Chandan Singh vs. Superintendent Central Goods and Service Tax Nainital. The reasoning, as indicated by the agreement of both parties and the reference to the prior judgment, is that if the petitioner has deposited all pending returns and paid the requisite penalties, the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns should be set aside or reconsidered in light of the compliance. The ratio decidendi is that compliance with statutory obligations, including filing of returns and payment of penalties, can lead to the restoration of cancelled GST registration, following the precedent established in Chandan Singh. The operative direction is to decide the present petition in accordance with the aforementioned order. No specific issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns, when the petitioner has subsequently filed all returns and paid penalties, warrants interference by this Court under its writ jurisdiction, considering the precedent set by this Court in Chandan Singh vs. Superintendent Central Goods and Service Tax Nainital (Writ Petition (M/S) No.2620 of 2023)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the cancellation of their GST registration was for non-filing of returns, and they have since rectified this by depositing all returns along with penalties. They further contended that the present case is squarely covered by the order dated 19.09.2023, passed by this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No.2620 of 2023. Respondent's contention: The respondent agreed that the matter is covered by the order dated 19.09.2023, passed in the aforementioned petition, and reiterated that the petitioner must deposit all dues and penalties.