Darpan Kumar vs. Assistant Commissioner State Tax

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should be permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. The reasoning was based on the submissions of both counsels, who agreed that the instant petitioner was similarly situated as the petitioner in the previously decided writ petition (Writ Petition No. 39 (M/B) of 2025). The Court disposed of the writ petition on the terms laid out in paragraph 8 of the order dated 24.02.2025 in Writ Petition No. 39 (M/B) of 2025. This means the petitioner is permitted to move an application for revocation within two weeks, and if all pending returns are furnished and unpaid tax, interest, and penalty are deposited, the Competent Authority shall consider the revocation prayer within four weeks of receiving the application. No specific section of the GST Act was discussed in detail, but the decision implicitly relates to the provisions governing cancellation and revocation of registration.

Facts

The petitioner, Darpan Kumar, a taxable person registered under the GST Act, 2017, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of his GST registration by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period. The petitioner's counsel referred to a previous judgment by a Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024, where the petitioner was allowed to apply for revocation of cancellation, and the authority was directed to consider it. The State's counsel had no objection to a similar order. The present petition was filed in similar circumstances as a Co-ordinate Bench judgment in Writ Petition No. 39 (M/B) of 2025, dated 24.02.2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to apply for revocation of the cancellation of his GST registration, given his failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a similar order should be passed in his case as was done in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024, allowing him to apply for revocation and directing the Competent Authority to consider it. The petitioner also relied on the fact that the present petition was filed in similar circumstances as Writ Petition No. 39 (M/B) of 2025. 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.