Puran Singh 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 petitions, specifically referencing Writ Petition (M/B) No. 408 of 2025 dated 24.06.2025. The reasoning was that the cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of periodical returns, when the petitioners undertake to pay the tax along with interest and penalty, does not cause prejudice or loss to the department. Furthermore, it involves the fundamental right to carry out trade or business. The Court allowed the writ petition on these terms, directing that the petitioner be permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. If such an application is made within two weeks and all pending returns are furnished along with the deposit of unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, the Competent Authority shall consider the prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks of receiving the application. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Puran Singh, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging an order of cancellation of their GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period. The Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3, had passed the cancellation order dated 12.03.2024. The petitioner sought relief similar to that granted in previous writ petitions where the court had allowed petitioners to apply for revocation of cancellation orders. The respondents, Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax and another, were represented by counsel. The parties agreed to dispose of the instant petition in terms of a prior judgment dated 24.06.2025 in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 408 of 2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to make an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, considering the order was passed due to non-furnishing of GST returns. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are similarly situated as the petitioner in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 71 of 2025 and Writ Petition (M/B) No. 408 of 2025, and therefore, should be granted similar relief. They relied on a previous judgment in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024, which permitted a petitioner to apply for revocation of cancellation and directed the Competent Authority to consider it. The petitioner expressed willingness to furnish pending returns and deposit unpaid tax with interest and penalty. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for the respondents (CGST) submitted that they had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order.