M/S Sukhija Kirana Store vs. Superintendent

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition should be disposed of on similar terms as Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025. This means the petitioner is permitted 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 interest and penalty, the Competent Authority shall consider the prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the receipt of the application. The Court's reasoning is based on the submission of both counsels that the petitioner is similarly situated to the petitioner in the earlier writ petition and that the respondent had no objection to this course of action. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of GST registration cancellation due to non-filing of returns, where the taxpayer is willing to rectify the non-compliance, the High Court may direct the Competent Authority to consider the revocation application.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sukhija Kirana Store, 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 a prescribed period. The petitioner sought a similar order as granted in a previous case, Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, where the court had permitted the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation. The respondent, Superintendent, Central Goods and Services Tax, and the learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand, did not object to this course of action. The present writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, whose GST registration has been cancelled for failure to furnish returns, should be permitted to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, similar to the relief granted in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025? The petitioner argued that a similar order should be passed in its case, relying on a judgment by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024. The respondent, represented by the learned Brief Holder for the State, stated they had no objection to the petitioner moving an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the Superintendent, Central Goods and Services Tax, beyond the general submission that the matter could be disposed of in terms of the previous judgment.