Ms Mukesh Panwar 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 previous writ petitions, specifically referencing the order dated February 24, 2025, in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025. The Court permitted the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. The operative directions stipulated that if the petitioner files such an application within two weeks from the date of the order, and simultaneously furnishes all pending returns, deposits unpaid tax along with interest, and the amount of penalty, the Competent Authority shall consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The Court noted that the facts were not in dispute and both counsels were in agreement regarding the facts.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Mukesh Panwar, a taxable person registered under the GST Act, 2017, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of his GST registration. The cancellation order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3, on March 12, 2024. The show cause notice indicated that the cancellation was due to the petitioner's failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment where a similar petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation of cancellation. The respondent, Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, through the learned Brief Holder, had no objection to a similar order being passed. The present writ petition was filed in light of similar issues dealt with by the High Court in previous writ petitions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to make an application for revocation of the cancellation of his GST registration, considering his failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a similar order was passed in a previous writ petition (Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024) where the petitioner was allowed to apply for revocation, and the Competent Authority was directed to consider the application. The petitioner sought a similar disposition for the present case. Respondents' contention: The learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand submitted that she had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order.