Shyam Narayan Prasad vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Commissionerate

Facts

The petitioner, M/S Shyam Narayan Prasad, a partnership firm registered under the CGST Act, had its GST registration cancelled by an order dated 15.03.2023. The cancellation was due to the petitioner's failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner contended that their GST Consultant/Advocate failed to inform them of their liability to file returns, leading to the default. The petitioner also stated that they had already paid the imposed tax and penalty. The respondent revenue relied on a previous judgment of a Coordinate Bench dated 02.03.2023 in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3187 of 2022, M/S Battu Lal Radhay Shyam vs. Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax Commissionerate and others, for deciding the present controversy.

Held

The Court decided to dispose of the instant petition in terms of the order dated 02.03.2023, passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3187 of 2022. The petitioner was directed 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 within two weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner must comply with all conditions stipulated in Section 30 of the CGST Act, including submitting all previously unfiled returns and depositing all pending dues. Upon receipt of such an application within the stipulated period, the competent authority is directed to consider the application for revocation within the next two weeks. The ratio decidendi is that where a petitioner takes steps to rectify the default and approaches the authority within a reasonable time, and has paid dues, the cancellation order can be revoked subject to compliance with statutory requirements.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for failure to furnish returns for six months, where the petitioner attributes the default to their consultant, warrants revocation under Section 30 of the CGST Act and Section 23 of the CGST Rules? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the default in filing returns was due to the negligence of their appointed GST Consultant/Advocate, who failed to inform them of their filing obligations. They also claimed to have paid the tax and penalty. They sought a decision in line with a previous High Court order on a similar matter. Revenue's Argument: The revenue referred to a previous judgment of a Coordinate Bench of the High Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3187 of 2022, M/S Battu Lal Radhay Shyam vs. Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax Commissionerate and others, and submitted that the present writ petition should be decided in terms of that judgment.