M/S. Lns Constructions vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer

Held

The Court, considering the facts and circumstances, inclined to allow the petitioner to approach the competent authority within two weeks for submitting an application for revocation of GST registration online. If the online submission faced technical issues, the petitioner was permitted to submit the application in physical form. The competent authority was directed to entertain the application and decide it in accordance with the law within three weeks thereafter. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs. The Court did not explicitly decide on the legality or arbitrariness of the cancellation order itself but provided a procedural remedy for revocation.

Facts

M/s. LNS Constructions (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration by the Deputy State Tax Officer (the respondent). The cancellation order, dated 14.08.2024, was made effective from 30.11.2023. The stated reason for cancellation was the petitioner's failure to file returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner contended that due to unforeseen circumstances and issues with their consultant, they were unable to file returns within the stipulated time. The petitioner sought revocation of the cancellation order. The respondent argued that the cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to furnish returns for six months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration dated 14.08.2024, with an effective date of 30.11.2023, for failure to file returns under the CGST Act, 2017, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and constitutional safeguards under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the cancellation was illegal and arbitrary, violating principles of natural justice and constitutional rights. They attributed the non-filing of returns to "inevitable circumstances" and "non-communication of proper information from the consultant." They sought revocation of the cancellation. Respondents' Arguments: The respondent (State Tax) contended that the cancellation was a direct consequence of the petitioner's failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months, which is a valid ground for cancellation under the GST Act and Rules.