U K Group vs. Commissioner Central Good And Service Tax
Held
The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission and the precedent set in WPMS No. 345 of 2023. The revenue did not contest this. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. This application is to be made under Section 30 of the CGST Act read with Section 23 of the CGST Rules. The petitioner must file this application within two weeks from the date of the order and comply with all conditions stipulated in Section 30 of the CGST Act, including furnishing all pending returns and depositing any outstanding dues. The competent authority is directed to consider the petitioner's application for revocation within two weeks of its filing, provided it is submitted within the stipulated timeframe.
Facts
The petitioner, registered under the CGST Act, 2017, had their GST registration cancelled by an order dated 11.10.2023. The cancellation was based on the ground of failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner contended that their advocate failed to inform them about a show-cause notice issued on 08.11.2022, preventing them from responding. Consequently, the petitioner could not address the notice, leading to the cancellation of their registration. The petitioner referred to a previous judgment in WPMS No. 345 of 2023 dealing with a similar issue.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration is valid when the petitioner failed to respond to a show-cause notice due to alleged non-communication by their advocate? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the cancellation was erroneous as they were not properly informed about the show-cause notice by their engaged advocate, thus preventing them from presenting their case. They relied on the judgment in WPMS No. 345 of 2023, which dealt with a similar situation. Revenue's Argument: The learned counsel for the respondents (revenue) did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding the previous judgment and the facts presented.
Sections Cited
Section 30, Section 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. 3552 of 2023
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. N.K. Papnoi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the respondents.
Petitioner is registered with authorities under CGST Act, 2017. His registration has been cancelled vide order dated 11.10.2023 on the ground that he has failed to furnish return for a continuous period of six months. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition, it is stated that Advocate engaged by the petitioner to look after the tax matters did not inform the petitioner about the show-cause notice issued on 08.11.2022, therefore, petitioner could not respond to the show-cause notice which resulted in cancellation of his CGST registration.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to judgment rendered in WPMS No. 345 of 2023 in which similar controversy was decided.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned
counsel for the respondents does not dispute the said submission.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed-off with liberty t
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.