Chandan Singh vs. Superintendent Central Goods And Service Tax Nainital

Held

The Court decided to dispose of the instant petition in terms of the order passed on 02.03.2023 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 was also instructed to comply with all conditions stipulated in Section 30 of the CGST Act, submit all previously unsubmitted returns, and deposit all pending dues. If the application for revocation was filed within the stipulated period, the competent authority was directed to consider it within the subsequent two weeks. The reasoning for this decision was based on the precedent set by the Coordinate Bench in the earlier writ petition, implying a procedural path for the petitioner to seek restoration of their registration.

Facts

The petitioner, engaged in providing Work Contract Services and registered under the CGST Act, had its GST registration cancelled by an order dated 03.02.2023. The cancellation was attributed to a failure to furnish returns for six continuous months. The petitioner contended that the Show Cause Notice dated 02.02.2023, referenced in the impugned order, was never issued and that the tax liability stated was NIL, indicating no revenue demand. The respondent relied on a previous judgment of a Coordinate Bench in M/S Battu Lal Radhay Shyam vs. Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax Commissionerate and others (Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3187 of 2022) to decide the present controversy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months is valid when the petitioner claims the Show Cause Notice was not issued and the tax liability was NIL? The petitioner argued that the Show Cause Notice was never issued and the impugned order showed a NIL tax liability, implying no revenue demand existed against them. The respondent, representing the State, submitted that a Coordinate Bench had already decided a similar controversy in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3187 of 2022 and proposed that the present petition be decided in terms of that judgment. The petitioner's counsel agreed to this course of action.