Uttarakhand High Court Permits Application for Revocation of GST Registration Cancellation: Orders Petitioner to Furnish All Pending Returns, Pay Outstanding Dues, Penalties, and Late Fees to Seek Reinstatement of GST Registration
Uttarakhand High Court Permits Application for Revocation of GST Registration Cancellation: Orders Petitioner to Furnish All Pending Returns, Pay Outstanding Dues, Penalties, and Late Fees to Seek Reinstatement of GST Registration

Uttarakhand High Court Permits Application for Revocation of GST Registration Cancellation: Orders Petitioner to Furnish All Pending Returns, Pay Outstanding Dues, Penalties, and Late Fees to Seek Reinstatement of GST Registration

Share this article

Court’s Decision:
The Uttarakhand High Court allowed the petitioner to file an application under Section 30(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, to revoke the cancellation of the GST registration. The petitioner was given two weeks to submit the application, along with all pending GST returns and payment of outstanding dues, including penalties, interest, and late fees. The Competent Authority was directed to consider the application and pass an appropriate order within four weeks.

Facts:
The petitioner, a proprietorship firm operating under the name ‘M/s Maa Bhagwati Traders,’ was registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled by the respondents on December 7, 2018, due to the petitioner’s failure to file GST returns for six months consecutively.

Issues:

  • Whether the petitioner’s GST registration could be reinstated through an application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30(2) of the CGST Act, 2017.
  • Whether the petitioner should be allowed to submit pending GST returns and pay the due amount after the cancellation.

Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner is now ready to pay the outstanding GST returns for the six months, along with any penalties, interest, and late fees. The counsel further referred to a similar case decided by the court in WPMS No. 2285 of 2024, which had a nearly identical controversy.

Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondent’s counsel did not oppose the submissions made by the petitioner’s counsel and agreed that the matter was covered by the previous decision in WPMS No. 2285 of 2024.

Analysis of the Law:
Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, provides for the revocation of a cancelled registration, allowing an applicant to submit a request for revocation within a specified period, provided that all due returns, payments, and penalties are fulfilled. The court applied this section in its decision, enabling the petitioner to rectify their defaults and seek restoration of their GST registration.

Precedent Analysis:
The court relied on its previous judgment in WPMS No. 2285 of 2024, where the court had similarly dealt with the issue of cancellation of GST registration for failure to file returns, and allowed the petitioner in that case to apply for revocation of cancellation by fulfilling the required statutory obligations.

Court’s Reasoning:
The court, acknowledging the consensus between both parties, determined that the matter was covered by the earlier ruling in WPMS No. 2285 of 2024. Consequently, the court found it appropriate to extend the same relief to the present petitioner by allowing them to submit the pending returns and make the necessary payments to seek revocation of the GST registration cancellation.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to file an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation under Section 30(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner was directed to submit all pending returns and outstanding dues within two weeks, after which the Competent Authority would pass an appropriate order within four weeks.

Implications:
This decision highlights the court’s recognition of the petitioner’s right to rectify procedural lapses and seek revocation of a cancelled GST registration. It reinforces the provision under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, offering businesses a chance to regularize their GST obligations even after cancellation, provided all statutory dues are fulfilled.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Rejects State’s Review Petition After 4-Year Delay: “1679-Day Delay Not Adequately Explained, Overruled Judgment Cannot Serve as Ground for Review, No Sufficient Cause Shown for Condoning Inordinate Delay”

2 Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *