Noore Manpower Services vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax

Held

The Court held that the issue in the present writ petition was identical to the one decided in WPMB No. 39 of 2025. Consequently, the writ petition was decided in terms of the judgment rendered in that prior case on 24.2.2025. The petitioner was permitted to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order within two weeks from the date of the current judgment. This application would be considered by the competent authority, provided the petitioner also furnishes all pending returns and deposits the unpaid tax along with interest and any applicable penalty. The competent authority is directed to consider the prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the date of receiving the application. The ratio decidendi is that where an issue is identical to a previously decided case, the present case should follow the precedent, with procedural directions for the petitioner to comply with statutory requirements for revocation.

Facts

The petitioner, Noore Manpower Services, is aggrieved by the cancellation of its Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration. The respondents are the Commissioner and another authority. The writ petition was filed challenging the cancellation order. The parties' counsel agreed that the issue in this petition was identical to one previously decided by the Court in WPMB No. 39 of 2025. The Court was therefore asked to decide the matter based on its prior judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration is valid, and if not, what relief can be granted? (Mixed question of law and fact, potentially concerning provisions related to cancellation of registration under the GST Act). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the issue is identical to a previous case decided by the Court, implying a favorable outcome based on that precedent. The petitioner sought a remedy for the cancellation of its GST registration. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment, but their presence as respondents indicates they would defend the cancellation order. However, the judgment notes "unanimity amongst learned Counsel for the parties that the issue involved here is identical to the one decided in WPMB No. 39 of 2025," suggesting the revenue did not contest this procedural agreement.