Kuldeep Singh Vs Commissioner of Commercial Goods and Service Tax (Uttarakhand High Court)
Uttarakhand High Court, in Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Goods and Service Tax, addressed the petitioner’s challenge against the cancellation of his GST registration. The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 27.02.2023, arguing that the cancellation was imposed without due consideration. His GSTIN was revoked due to non-payment of GST returns for over six months, and he requested the court to direct authorities to restore his registration. In response, the petitioner expressed his willingness to clear all outstanding tax dues, including interest and penalties, and committed to submitting an application for revocation.
The court considered the submissions and, with the consent of both parties, disposed of the petition with specific directions. It ruled that if the petitioner deposits all outstanding dues and submits an application within one week, the competent authority must review and decide on the application within another week from the submission date. This decision highlights the possibility of GST registration reinstatement upon compliance with statutory tax obligations, ensuring that businesses can rectify past non-compliance and resume operations legally.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers: –
“(i) A writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 27.02.2023 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no. 2 whereby the respondent no. 2 without considering the anxiety of the petitioner illegally cancelled the Goods and Service Tax Identification Number (GSTIN) as issued by Commercial Tax Department.
(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the respondents to revoke the GSTIN as issued by the respondents authority being GST Number 05HFCPS9968P1Z6 which is cancelled by the respondents due to non payment of GST returns for the period of more than six months.
(iii) Any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award the cost of petition to the petitioner.”
2. Heard Mr. Ankur Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, learned Brief Holder for the respondents.
