Ms Mohd Shahnawaz Gold Hosiery vs. Union Of INDIA
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 outstanding dues along with interest and the department'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 in turn relied on an earlier order in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025. The operative direction was to permit the petitioner to file an application for revocation. If the petitioner files such an application within two weeks and furnishes all pending returns, deposits the unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, the Competent Authority shall consider the prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks of receiving the application. No order as to costs was made.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Mohd. Shahnawaz Gold Hosiery, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The cancellation was reportedly due to the petitioner's failure to furnish GST returns for a prescribed period. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay all outstanding dues, including interest, and the department 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 in a similar matter.
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 department's no-objection. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of principles of natural justice and the provisions governing GST registration cancellation and revocation under the CGST Act, 2017. Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that in similar circumstances, the Court has allowed petitioners to apply for revocation of cancellation orders, provided they clear all pending dues and file required returns. Relied on the judgment in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 544 of 2025. Respondents (Union of India and others): Did not object to the petitioner's prayer for revocation, provided all dues are settled.
Sections Cited
CGST Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025:UHC:10767-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 1024 OF 2025
3RD DECEMBER, 2025
M/s Mohd. Shahnawaz Gold Hosiery …… Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others
…… Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, learned counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Vikas Verma, learned counsel
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri G. Narendar)
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 1
2025:UHC:10767-DB 2)
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is willing to pay up all the dues along with interest when the department has no objection for revocation. 3)
The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 544 of 2025, Sunil Kumar Vs Commissioner, Central Goods
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.