Ms Hukam Singh Danu vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the writ petition should be disposed of on similar terms as previous similar cases. The reasoning was that the cancellation was due to non-filing of periodical returns, and the petitioners had undertaken to pay the outstanding tax along with interest and penalty. The Court found that this approach does not cause prejudice or loss to the Department and also upholds the fundamental right to carry on trade or business. Therefore, the Court permitted the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. If the application is made within two weeks and all pending returns are furnished, along with unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, the Competent Authority is directed to consider the prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks of receiving the application. The Court noted that it has been consistently holding this view in similar matters.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Hukam Singh Danu, is a taxable person registered under the GST Act, 2017. Their GST registration was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Haridwar-Sector 3, via 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 challenged this cancellation order by filing a writ petition before the High Court. The court noted that the facts were not in dispute and that both parties were in agreement regarding them.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns, without providing an opportunity for revocation, is legally sustainable? (Question of law, turning on principles of natural justice and relevant GST provisions). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a similar order should be passed in their case as was done in a previous writ petition (Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025). They relied on a Single Judge's order in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024, which permitted the petitioner in that case to apply for revocation of cancellation and directed the authority to consider it. The petitioner sought a similar direction. Respondent'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.