Mahidev Singh vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition should be disposed of on similar terms as Writ Petition No. 39 of 2025. The Court permitted the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. If the petitioner files such an application within two weeks from the date of the order, furnishes all pending returns, and deposits the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty, the Competent Authority is directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Mahidev Singh, is a taxable person registered under the GST Act, 2017. His GST registration was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3, via an order dated March 12, 2024. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period, as indicated in a show cause notice issued on February 23, 2024. The petitioner challenged this cancellation order by filing the present writ petition. Both counsels agreed that the facts are not in dispute and that the case is similar to a previous writ petition, Writ Petition No. 39 of 2025, decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to make an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, considering his failure to furnish GST returns. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a similar order was passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024, allowing the petitioner in that case to apply for revocation of cancellation and directing the Competent Authority to consider the application. The petitioner sought a similar direction in the present case. Revenue/State's contention: The learned Brief Holder for the State submitted that she had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order.