Ms Dhh Healthcare PVT LTD vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST Commissionerate Dehradun

Held

The Court held that the writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the judgment dated July 17, 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 permitted the petitioner, M/s DHH Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. The reasoning was based on the submission of both counsels that the petitioner was similarly situated as the petitioner in the aforementioned writ petitions. The operative direction was that if the petitioner makes such an application within two weeks from the date of the order and furnishes all pending returns, deposits unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, the Competent Authority shall consider the prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The Court explicitly adopted the relief granted in paragraph 8 of the judgment dated February 24, 2025, in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s DHH Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging an order of cancellation of its GST registration. The cancellation was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3, on March 12, 2024, due to the petitioner's failure to furnish GST returns for a prescribed period. The show cause notice for cancellation was issued on February 23, 2024. The petitioner sought a similar relief 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 respondent, Commissioner, Uttarakhand State GST Commissionerate, Dehradun, did not object to this course of action.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, M/s DHH Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., should be granted an opportunity to apply for the revocation of its GST registration cancellation, which was ordered due to non-furnishing of GST returns, in light of previous judicial precedents and the respondent's stance? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning the interpretation and application of relevant GST provisions relating to cancellation and revocation of registration). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a similar relief was granted in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025, where the court permitted the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order. They relied on a judgment by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024, which allowed the petitioner therein to make an application for revocation. The petitioner requested a similar order in their case. 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.