Roshani Sharma vs. Assistant Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax
Facts
The petitioner, a proprietorship firm registered under the Central GST Act, 2017, had its GST registration cancelled by an order dated 02.03.2023. The cancellation was based on the ground of non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner attributed this non-compliance to a communication gap with her tax consultant. The petitioner sought relief from the High Court, relying on a previous judgment of the same court in a similar case.
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner 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 submitting all pending returns and depositing all outstanding dues. If the application is filed within the stipulated period, the Competent Authority shall consider it within the subsequent two weeks. The Court's decision is based on the precedent set in WPMS No. 3187 of 2022, acknowledging the similarity of the issue.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner's GST registration, cancelled for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months, can be revoked, considering the explanation provided for the non-filing. The petitioner argued that the issue is identical to one previously decided by the Court in WPMS No. 3187 of 2022, and therefore, the present petition should be decided in terms of that judgment. The respondents' counsel conceded that the controversy is similar and agreed that the petition could be decided in terms of the judgment in WPMS No. 3187 of 2022.
Sections Cited
Section 30, 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. 1161 of 2024
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Prakash Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Shakshi Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondents.
Petitioner runs a business as proprietorship firm, which was registered under the provisions of Central G.S.T. Act, 2017. Her registration has been cancelled vide order dated 02.03.2023. The ground taken for cancelling her registration is non- filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The explanation offered by petitioner is that due to communication gap between her and tax consultant, GST returns could not be filed in time.
Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon judgment dated 12.12.2022 rendered by this Court in WPMS No. 3187 of 2022. He submits that since identical issue has been decided in the aforesaid writ petition, therefore, the present writ petition can be decided in terms of the said judgment.
Ms. Shakshi Singh, learned counsel for the res
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.