Godwin Hospitality Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 24.02.2025 passed in Writ Petition (S/B) No.39 of 2025. The petitioner was permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. The Competent Authority was directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation as per law, provided the petitioner made such an application within two weeks from the date of the order, furnished all pending returns, and deposited the unpaid tax along with interest and penalty. The Competent Authority was to pass an appropriate order within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The ratio of the decision is that a taxpayer who has had their GST registration cancelled for non-filing of returns can be granted an opportunity to seek revocation if they comply with certain conditions, including filing pending returns and paying dues.

Facts

The petitioner, Godwin Hospitality Private Limited, is a taxable person registered under the GST Act, 2017. The Assistant Commissioner, State Goods & Services Tax, passed an order dated 12.03.2024 cancelling the petitioner's GST registration. The cancellation was based on a show cause notice dated 23.02.2024, which cited 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 Uttarakhand High Court. The present writ petition is being disposed of in terms of a prior judgment of a Coordinate Bench of the same court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to apply for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, considering their failure to furnish GST returns. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of relevant provisions of the GST Act, 2017, concerning registration cancellation and revocation. The petitioner argued that a similar relief granted in a previous case should be extended to them. The respondent (State) submitted that they had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order. The court had to decide whether to allow the petitioner to seek revocation despite the non-compliance that led to the cancellation.