Narayan Singh Patni Contractor Vs Commissioner (Uttarakhand High Court)
In the case of Narayan Singh Patni Contractor vs. Commissioner, the Uttarakhand High Court addressed the issue of whether a cancelled Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration can be reinstated if the assessee agrees to pay all outstanding dues. The petitioner, whose GST registration was cancelled, approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of the cancellation order and permission to apply for revocation under Section 30 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017.
The petitioner expressed readiness to pay the total outstanding liability, including tax, interest, and penalty, within a two-week period. The court acknowledged this intent and took a pragmatic approach, allowing the petitioner to file the revocation application. It directed the Competent Authority to consider the application and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law within two weeks of submission. The court emphasized that its order was procedural and did not comment on the merits of the case.
The court’s decision aligns with Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the corresponding state law in Uttarakhand. This provision allows for revocation of cancellation if certain conditions, including timely payment of dues, are met. The ruling underscores that payment compliance can act as a valid ground for reinstating a GST registration, and also highlights the importance of procedural fairness in tax administration.
Judicially, the decision reiterates the principle that administrative relief should be available when a taxpayer seeks to regularize their affairs in good faith. Though no prior binding precedents were explicitly referenced, similar rulings have recognized the authority of the courts to direct reconsideration of registration cancellations if statutory dues are cleared. The court’s measured directive sets a procedural benchmark for similar cases, urging tax authorities to act within defined timelines once the assessee fulfills legal obligations.
Overall, the ruling serves as a reminder of the balancing act between strict compliance and administrative flexibility. It ensures that taxpayers who wish to rectify lapses by fulfilling their liabilities are given a fair chance, while also mandating prompt and lawful response from the authorities.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
1. Present Writ Pet it ion has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers: –
(i) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the record of the case and quashing the order dated 31. 05. 2024 (Annexure No. 2) ( Ref. No. ZA050524043378J) passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby GST Registration No. 05AWOPP9002D3ZJ of the petitioner’s was cancellation.
(ii) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandam us permitting the petitioner to prefer an application U/ S 30 of the UKGST/CGST Act 2017, for filing an application for revocation of the cancellation of GST Registration No. 05AWOPP9002D3ZJ of the Petitioner and further direction issued to the Respondent No. 2 to consider the revocation application of the Petitioner in accordance with law.
(iii) Issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper, in the circum stances of the present case.
(iv) If there is any delay in filling the present writ petition please condone it and accept the writ petition.”
2. Heard Mr. Hem ant Singh Mahra, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for respondents.
3. Mr. Hemant Singh Mahra, Advocate, has submitted that the petitioner is willing to deposit the entire outstanding dues of tax including interest and penalty within two weeks’ and for this purpose he shall move his application to the Competent Authority.
4. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate, has sought two weeks’ time to decide the petitioner’s application.
5. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present Writ Pet it ion ( 3701 of 2024) is disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner move an application and deposits the entire outstanding dues of tax including interest and penalty within two weeks’ from today, the Competent Authority shall consider the application of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order as per law within a period of two weeks’ thereafter.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.
