Case Law Details
Pankaj Joshi Vs Assistant Commissioner (Uttarakhand High Court)
Non-Filing of GST Returns Due to Miscommunication with Tax Consultant: Uttarakhand HC Allows Petitioner to File GST Registration Cancellation Revocation Application
The Uttarakhand High Court has recently allowed a petitioner to file a GST registration cancellation revocation application. This decision comes in the case of Pankaj Joshi vs. Assistant Commissioner, where the petitioner faced cancellation of GST registration due to a communication gap with his tax consultant.
The petitioner, Pankaj Joshi, faced cancellation of his GST registration after failing to file returns for six consecutive months. Joshi attributed this lapse to a miscommunication with his tax consultant. The court’s ruling provides relief to the petitioner, allowing him to seek revocation of the cancellation.
The case was presented by Mr. Pankaj Tiwari, the advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, the brief holder for the State of Uttarakhand. The primary contention was the cancellation of Joshi’s GST registration on December 7, 2022, due to the non-filing of GST returns over six months. Joshi explained that a communication gap between him and his tax consultant was the reason behind the delay in filing the returns.
The petitioner’s counsel referred to a previous judgment dated February 28, 2024, in WPMS No. 424 of 2024, where a similar issue was resolved in favor of the petitioner. The counsel argued that the current writ petition should be decided in line with the earlier judgment. The state counsel agreed, noting that the circumstances of the current case mirrored those of the referenced judgment.
Given the consensus between the parties, the Uttarakhand High Court decided to resolve the matter in accordance with the order passed in WPMS No. 424 of 2024. The court granted the petitioner the liberty to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order under Section 30 of the Central GST Act within two weeks. Along with the application, the petitioner was required to submit all outstanding GST returns and pay any due taxes.
The court directed the competent authority to consider Joshi’s application and issue an appropriate order within four weeks of receiving the application. This directive ensures that the petitioner has a fair opportunity to rectify the situation and comply with the necessary legal requirements.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
1. Mr. Pankaj Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
3. Petitioner is aggrieved by cancellation of his GST registration, vide order dated 07.12.2022. The ground taken for cancelling his registration is non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The explanation offered by petitioner is that due to communication gap between him and tax consultant, engaged by petitioner, GST returns could not be filed in time.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon judgment dated 28.02.2024 rendered by this Court in WPMS No. 424 of
2024. He submits that since identical issue has been decided in the aforesaid writ petition, therefore, the present writ petition can be decided in terms of the said judgment.
5. Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, learned State Counsel, on instructions submits that the controversy involved in this case is similar, therefore, the instant writ petition can be decided in terms of the judgment rendered in WPMS No. 424 of 2024.
6. In view of consensus between the parties that matter is covered by the order passed in Writ Petition No. 424 of 2024 (M/S), present writ petition is also decided in terms of the said order. Petitioner shall be at liberty to move an application for revocation of cancellation order under Section 30 of Central GST Act within two weeks. With his application, petitioner shall also furnish all the GST returns which he failed to submit and he will also deposit the outstanding dues of Goods and Service Tax with his application. If he makes the application within stipulated time, the competent authority shall consider petitioner’s application and pass appropriate order as per law, within four weeks thereafter.
Author Bio
