Barulal Contractor And Supplier vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Held

The Court held that the writ petition should be disposed of on similar terms as previous orders in similar cases. Specifically, the Court followed the directions issued in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 71 of 2025, which in turn was based on 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 within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application, provided the petitioner makes such an application within two weeks from the date of the order and also furnishes all pending returns and deposits the unpaid tax along with interest and penalty. The Court reasoned that such an approach does not cause prejudice or loss to the department and upholds the fundamental right to carry out trade or business. The writ petition was disposed of on these terms, with no order as to costs.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Barulal Contractor & Supplier, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The cancellation was ordered by the Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3, vide an order dated 12.03.2024. The reason for cancellation, as indicated in the show cause notice dated 23.02.2024, was the petitioner's failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period. The petitioner sought relief similar to that granted in a previous writ petition (Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024), where the court had permitted the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order. The respondents, the Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax and another, were represented. The present petition was filed on 19th September, 2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to make an application for revocation of the cancellation of its GST registration, given the reason for cancellation was non-filing of returns. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the cancellation of its GST registration was on account of non-filing of periodical returns. It relied on a judgment in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024, where a similar petitioner was allowed to apply for revocation, and the Competent Authority was directed to consider the application. The petitioner sought a similar order. It also submitted that it was similarly situated as the petitioner in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 408 of 2025 and Writ Petition (M/B) No. 71 of 2025. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for the respondents (department) stated they had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order. The court noted that it had been consistently holding that such orders do not cause prejudice or loss to the department and involve the fundamental right to trade or business.