Ms Akshay Contractor Service vs. Superintendent Central Goods And Service Tax

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 17.03.2025, which followed the order in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025. The reasoning was that both parties submitted that the instant petitioner was similarly situated as the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. The operative directions were that if the petitioner made such an application within two weeks from the date of the order and also furnished all pending returns and deposited unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, the Competent Authority would consider the prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the receipt of the application. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Akshay Contractor Service, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period. The petitioner sought a similar order as granted in a previous writ petition (Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025), where the court had permitted the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order. The respondent, Superintendent, Central Goods and Services Tax, was represented by a learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Both parties agreed that the present case was factually similar to the prior writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an application for revocation of the cancellation of its GST registration, considering the failure to furnish GST returns? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning the provisions of the GST Act, 2017 related to registration cancellation and revocation). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a similar order should be passed in its case as was granted in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, allowing it to apply for revocation of the cancellation order. The petitioner relied on a judgment by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024, which permitted such an application. Respondent's contention: The learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand stated that there was no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order.