Dhirendra Sharma Contractor Gstin vs. Commissioner State Goods And Service Tax Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 17.03.2025 in Writ Petition (M/B) No.71 of 2025, which followed the order in Writ Petition (M/B) No.39 of 2025. The operative part of the earlier order (Writ Petition (M/B) No.39 of 2025) permitted the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. If the petitioner filed such an application within two weeks and furnished all pending returns, along with unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, the Competent Authority was directed to consider the prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks of receiving the application. The present writ petition was disposed of on these terms, with the Court noting that both counsels submitted that the petitioner was similarly situated. The Court directed that the writ petition stands ordered accordingly.

Facts

The petitioner, Dhirendra Sharma, is a taxable person registered under the GST Act, 2017. His GST registration was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, 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, as indicated in a show cause notice issued on 23.02.2024. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this cancellation order. The present writ petition is being disposed of in terms of a previous judgment in Writ Petition (M/B) No.71 of 2025, which itself followed an order in Writ Petition (M/B) No.39 of 2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, given the stated reason for cancellation (failure to furnish returns)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a similar order should be passed in their case as was done in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024, where the petitioner was allowed to apply for revocation of cancellation and the authority was directed to consider it. The petitioner sought a similar indulgence. Respondent's contention: The Commissioner, State Goods & Service Tax, through the learned Brief Holder, stated that they had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order.