Ms Trilok Singh Contractor vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Held

The Court held that the writ petition should be disposed of on similar terms as Writ Petition (M/B) No. 408 of 2025, which was disposed of on similar terms as Writ Petition (M/B) No. 71 of 2025. The reasoning was that the cancellation was due to non-filing of periodical returns, and the petitioners had undertaken to pay the tax along with interest and penalty. The Court found that this course of action does not cause prejudice or loss to the department and involves the fundamental right to carry out trade or business. Accordingly, the Court permitted the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. If the petitioner makes such an application within two weeks and furnishes all pending returns and deposits unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, the Competent Authority shall consider the prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The writ petition was disposed of on these terms.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Trilok Singh, Contractor, filed a writ petition challenging an order of cancellation of their GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period. The Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3, passed the cancellation order on 12.03.2024. The petitioner sought relief similar to that granted in a previous writ petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, where the court permitted the petitioner to apply for revocation of cancellation, provided pending returns were furnished and dues paid. The respondents, represented by the State, had no objection to this course of action.

Key Issues

1. Whether the GST registration of the petitioner, M/s Trilok Singh, Contractor, which was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3, vide order dated 12.03.2024, on account of failure to furnish GST returns, should be revoked upon the petitioner furnishing pending returns and depositing unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, as per Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017 and relevant rules. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that their situation was similar to that in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, and they should be permitted to make an application for revocation of the cancellation order, with the Competent Authority directed to consider it as per law. They relied on the order in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024. Respondents' 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.