Rohan Chandrawati Tanay vs. Assistant Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025. The petitioner was permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. The Court directed that if the petitioner files such an application within two weeks from the date of the order, and also furnishes all pending returns and deposits the unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, 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 explicitly decide on the merits of the cancellation itself but provided a procedural path for revocation.

Facts

The petitioner, Rohan Chandrawati Tanay, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging the cancellation of their GST registration. The cancellation order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods & Services Tax, Nainital. The reason for cancellation, as indicated in the show cause notice, was the petitioner's failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period. The petitioner sought similar relief as granted in a previous writ petition, Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, which dealt with a similar issue of GST registration cancellation due to non-filing of returns. The respondents, represented by the State, had no objection to the petitioner being permitted to apply for revocation of the cancellation order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an application for revocation of the cancellation of their GST registration, considering the cancellation was due to non-filing of returns? (Question of law and fact, turning on the provisions related to GST registration cancellation and revocation). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a similar relief was granted in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, where the petitioner was allowed to apply for revocation of cancellation. They sought a similar order in their case. They relied on the precedent set by the judgment in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024, which permitted a petitioner to apply for revocation. Revenue's contention: The learned Brief Holder for the State submitted that they had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order.