GST registration cancellation for six missed returns: writ held premature, appeal u/s 29(2)(c) CGST Act expedited

HC declined to examine the merits of the challenge to cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of more than six consecutive returns, noting that the petitioner had already availed the statutory appellate remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) II, Jammu and that such appeal was pending. Treating the writ as premature, HC refrained from interfering with the cancellation order. Instead, HC directed the appellate authority to hear and decide the pending appeal expeditiously, preferably within three weeks of receipt of the HC's order. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the delay in decision-making by the authorities under the Goods and Service Tax regime and the cancellation of GST registration without proper opportunity of being heard.

Summary:

Issue 1: Delay in decision-making
The petitioner filed a statutory online appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) II due to the cancellation of GST registration. Despite this, the appeal remained undecided, causing the petitioner to approach the High Court with a writ petition. The High Court directed the petitioner to file a detailed representation for reconsideration, which was subsequently disposed of by the State Tax Officer Circle-Q. The State Tax Officer confirmed that due process was followed before the cancellation of GST registration, and the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The High Court directed the appellate authority to dispose of the pending appeal without further delay.

Issue 2: Cancellation of GST registration without proper opportunity of being heard
The petitioner alleged that the GST registration was cancelled without affording him an opportunity to be heard. However, the State Tax Officer noted that the petitioner admitted to receiving a show cause notice for non-filing of returns and acknowledged not filing the returns as required by law. The State Tax Officer stated that the cancellation was based on due process, including serving a show cause notice and the absence of a reply from the petitioner. The State Tax Officer clarified that they were not competent to revoke the cancellation order on their own and directed the petitioner to follow up with the Appellate Authority for restoration of the GST registration.

Conclusion:
The High Court declined to grant relief in the writ petition, considering the pending appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) II. The High Court directed the appellate authority to expedite the adjudication of the petitioner's appeal within three weeks from the date of the court order. The petitioner was instructed to receive a copy of the order and the appellate authority was tasked with providing a copy of the decision to the petitioner as well.

---