Ms Bhagwati Traders vs. State Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should be permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. This decision was based on the petitioner's willingness to pay all pending dues, including unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, and the respondent's lack of objection. The Court followed the precedent set by a Co-ordinate Bench in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 544 of 2025, which had directed the Competent Authority to consider the revocation application. The ratio decidendi is that when a petitioner is willing to rectify past non-compliance by clearing all dues and the revenue has no objection, the Court may allow the petitioner to seek revocation of cancellation. The operative direction was to permit the petitioner to move an application for revocation within two weeks, and upon receipt of such application along with pending returns and payment of dues, the Competent Authority shall consider the prayer as per law within four weeks. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Bhagwati Traders, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to furnish GST returns for a prescribed period. The Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3, had passed the cancellation order on 12.03.2024, following a show cause notice issued on 23.02.2024. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding dues, including interest, and the respondent (State Tax Officer) had no objection to the revocation of the cancellation. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to apply for revocation of the cancellation of its GST registration, considering its willingness to clear all dues and the respondent's lack of objection. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that it is willing to pay all outstanding dues along with interest and penalty. It relied on the judgment in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 544 of 2025 (Sunil Kumar Vs Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Dehradun and another), which in turn referred to Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, where a similar petitioner was permitted to move an application for revocation of cancellation. The petitioner sought a similar order in its case. Respondent's Contention: The learned Brief Holder for the State submitted that she had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order.