Tara Chand J V Gstin vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate Dehradun

WPMS/522/2023HC UttarakhandGSTCNR UKHC01002869202325 February 2023Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, a government-approved contractor registered under GST, challenges the cancellation of his registration effective from July 28, 2022. The cancellation order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, SGST, Sector-1, Pithoragarh. The petitioner contends that the sole ground for cancellation was non-filing of GST returns for six months. He claims to have been regular in paying GST and filing returns, but a default occurred due to his advocate's failure to inform him about timely filing during the financial year 2021-2022. The petitioner also asserts that Show Cause Notices were not served physically as required by Section 169 of the SGST Act. The petitioner relies on a previous judgment of the Court in WPMS No. 75 of 2023.

Held

The Court noted the consensus between the parties that the controversy had been decided by a Coordinate Bench in WPMS No. 75 of 2023. Consequently, the present writ petition was decided in terms of that judgment. The petitioner was granted liberty to move an application under Section 30 of the SGST Act within three weeks, along with all pending SGST returns and outstanding GST dues. The Competent Authority is directed to consider the petitioner's application and pass an appropriate order within the subsequent three weeks. The Court did not explicitly address the validity of the Show Cause Notice service or the petitioner's explanation for non-filing as independent issues, but rather disposed of the matter based on the prior judgment and the parties' consensus.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration is valid, considering the alleged non-service of Show Cause Notices as per Section 169 of the SGST Act? 2. Whether the petitioner's explanation for the non-filing of GST returns, attributing it to his advocate's default, warrants setting aside the cancellation order? The petitioner argued that the cancellation order is bad in law as Show Cause Notices were not served physically, contrary to Section 169 of the SGST Act. He further contended that his case is covered by the judgment in WPMS No. 75 of 2023 and should be decided accordingly. The State counsel did not dispute the petitioner's submission that the controversy has already been decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court.

Sections Cited

Section 169, Section 30

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

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. 522 of 2023 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Tarun Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Lakhera, learned Brief Holder for the State. Petitioner is a Government approved Contractor, who is registered with the GST Establishment. His registration has been cancelled w.e.f. 28.07.2022 vide order dated 28.07.2022 passed by Assistant Commissioner, SGST, Sector-1, Pithoragarh. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this court

challenging the cancellation order.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the sole ground for cancelling the petitioner’s registration is non-filing of GST returns for continuous period of six months. In para 8 of the Writ Petition, it has been stated that petitioner was regular in paying GS Tax and he was also filing the GST returns regularly, however, during the financial year 2021-2022, there was default on the part of the Advocate engaged by the petitioner, who did not inform petitioner regarding timely filing of GST returns. It is further contended that Show Cause Notices were not served upon petitioner physically as provided under Section 169 of the SGST Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to judgement dated 10.01.2023 passed in WPMS No. 75 of 2023. He submits that the present case is covered by the said judgement and it be decided in terms of the said judgement.

Mr. Tarun Lakhera, learned State

counsel for the State does not dispute the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner that the controversy stands decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

In view of consensus between the parties that the controversy has been decided by Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPMS No. 75 of 2023, the present writ petition is decided in terms of the judgement dated 10.01.2023 rendered in WPMS No. 75 of 2023. Petitioner shall be at liberty to move an application Under Section 30 of SGST Act, within three weeks from today. He shall also file all sending SGST returns with outstanding dues of GST with his application. If such application is filed by petitioner within the stipulated period, the Competent Authority shall consider petitioner’s application and pass appropriate order within next three weeks.

(Manoj K.Tiwari, J.)

25.02.

2023

Kaushal

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.