Aries Consultant vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition should be disposed of on similar terms as the order dated February 24, 2025, passed in Writ Petition (S/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 and furnishes all pending returns, along with depositing the unpaid tax, interest, and any penalty, the Competent Authority shall consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Aries Consultant, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration by an order dated January 11, 2025. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash this order and a writ of mandamus to permit it to file an application for revocation of the cancellation under Section 30 of the UKGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. Both parties agreed that the facts were not in dispute and that the present petition could be disposed of in terms of a previous order dated July 17, 2025, passed in Writ Petition No. 544 of 2025, which itself was based on an order dated February 24, 2025, in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an application for revocation of the cancellation of its GST registration, given its willingness to pay all dues. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that it is ready to pay all balance tax, interest, and late fees, and therefore, should be allowed to file an application for revocation of the cancelled GST registration. They relied on the principle established in a previous judgment by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024, where a similar petitioner was permitted to make such an application. Respondents' Argument: The respondents, represented by learned counsel, stated they had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order.