Kashipur Beverages Private Limited vs. Commissioner Goods And Services Tax State GST

Held

The Court held that the writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025. The petitioner was permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order within two weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner was also required to furnish all pending returns and deposit the unpaid tax along with interest and penalty. Upon fulfillment of these conditions, the Competent Authority was directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of GST registration cancellation due to non-filing of returns, the taxpayer can be granted an opportunity to rectify the non-compliance and seek revocation, provided they comply with the stipulated conditions.

Facts

The petitioner, Kashipur Beverages Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration by the Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3, vide an order dated 12.03.2024. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period. The petitioner sought a similar relief as granted in a previous writ petition (Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025). The respondent, Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax, did not object to the petitioner being permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. The High Court disposed of the present writ petition in terms of the relief granted in the earlier judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, considering the grounds for cancellation were non-furnishing of returns. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a similar relief was granted in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, where the petitioner was allowed to apply for revocation of cancellation and the authority was directed to consider it. They sought a similar order. Revenue'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.