Ms Rao Trading Company vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST Commissionerate Dehradun

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 17.07.2025, rendered in Writ Petition (M/B) No.542 of 2025, which in turn followed the order in Writ Petition (S/B) No.39 of 2025. The Court noted that both counsels were at 'ad idem' regarding the facts and agreed that the instant petitioner was similarly situated as the petitioner in the earlier writ petition. Consequently, 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 makes such an application within two weeks from the date of the order and also furnishes all pending returns and deposits unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, the Competent Authority shall consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of such application. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Rao Trading Company, 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 order as granted in a previous writ petition (Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025), where the court allowed the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order. The respondents, represented by the Commissioner, Uttarakhand State GST Commissionerate & Others, did not object to this course of action. The present writ petition was disposed of in terms of the relief granted in the earlier judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, M/s Rao Trading Company, is entitled to an order permitting it to apply for revocation of its GST registration cancellation, similar to the relief granted in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that its case was factually similar to the petitioner in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025 and therefore, it should be granted the same relief. This relief would involve being permitted to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. Respondents' Contention: The learned Brief Holder for the State submitted that they had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order. The respondents did not present any arguments against the petitioner's request.