Mansha Stone Crusher vs. Commissioner CGST

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the judgment dated February 24, 2025, rendered in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025. The operative directions from that judgment, which were adopted here, permit the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order within two weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner must also furnish all pending returns and deposit unpaid tax along with interest and penalty. Upon receipt of such an application and compliance, the Competent Authority shall consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, as the matter was resolved by adopting the prior judgment's relief.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Mansha Stone Crusher, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The cancellation was ordered by the Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3, on March 12, 2024, due to the petitioner's failure to furnish GST returns for a prescribed period. A show cause notice dated February 23, 2024, indicated this reason. The petitioner sought a similar order as granted in a previous writ petition (Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025), where the petitioner was allowed to apply for revocation of cancellation. The respondents, represented by the Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Dehradun, and others, did not object to this course of action. The current writ petition was disposed of based on the relief granted in the aforementioned prior judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, M/s Mansha Stone Crusher, should be permitted to apply for revocation of its GST registration cancellation, similar to the relief granted in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that a similar order as granted in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025 should be passed in its case. This would involve being permitted to make an application for revocation of the cancellation order, with the Competent Authority directed to consider it. Respondents' Contention: The learned Brief Holder for the respondents stated that they had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order.