Tanuja Sweets vs. Assistant Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the petitioner must furnish the Geo Tag (latitude and longitude) of their office or place of business within two weeks from the date of the order. If this information is provided within the stipulated time, the pending application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation, filed under Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, shall be considered and disposed of by the Competent Authority in terms of Paragraph No. 8 of the order passed in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025 dated 24.02.2025. This means the authority will consider the prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the Geo Tag. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, as the primary condition for consideration of the revocation application was clearly laid out. The ratio is that while courts may grant leniency for procedural lapses, compliance with specific directions from authorities, such as providing location data, is a prerequisite for the consideration of relief.

Facts

The petitioner, Tanuja Sweets, is a taxable person registered under the GST Act, 2017. Their GST registration was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Almora, Uttarakhand, due to failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this cancellation. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Commissioner and another, are the authorities who passed the cancellation order. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves a previous similar writ petition (WPMB No. 39 of 2025) that was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench, and the current petitioner seeks similar relief. A key fact is that the petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act is pending, but the petitioner has not furnished the Geo Tag (latitude and longitude) of their business premises as directed by the authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to move an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, similar to the relief granted in a prior Co-ordinate Bench judgment (WPMB No. 39 of 2025)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argues that they are similarly situated to the petitioner in WPMB No. 39 of 2025 and therefore should be granted similar relief, allowing them to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. Respondents' contention: The respondents acknowledge the pending revocation application. They highlight that the petitioner has failed to furnish the Geo Tag of their business premises as directed, which is a prerequisite for the application to be considered. They do not object to the petitioner furnishing this information and having the application considered. 2. Whether the pending revocation application under Section 30 of the CGST Act should be considered and disposed of, given the petitioner's failure to provide the Geo Tag of their premises? Petitioner's contention: Implicitly, the petitioner seeks consideration of their pending revocation application. Respondents' contention: The respondents contend that the application is pending due to the petitioner's non-compliance in furnishing the Geo Tag. They submit that if the Geo Tag is provided, the application can be considered and disposed of as per law.