Meer Alam vs. Commissioner Of The SGST

Held

The Court held that the instant writ petition should be disposed of on similar terms as Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, disposed of by order dated 24.02.2025. The reasoning was that the petitioner was similarly situated to the petitioners in the aforementioned writ petitions. The Court permitted the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order within two weeks from the date of the order. If such an application is made, and the petitioner also furnishes all pending returns and deposits the unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, the Competent Authority shall consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Meer Alam, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of his GST registration by the Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3, vide an order dated 12.03.2024. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period. The petitioner contended that his case was similar to previous writ petitions (W.P.(M/B) No. 39 of 2025 and W.P.(M/B) No. 79 of 2025) disposed of by the Uttarakhand High Court. In those cases, the Court had permitted the petitioners to apply for revocation of their GST registration cancellation, provided they furnished pending returns and deposited unpaid tax, interest, and penalties. The respondents, Commissioner of SGST and another, did not object to a similar order being passed in the present case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, having failed to furnish GST returns, is entitled to an opportunity to apply for revocation of the cancellation of his GST registration, similar to the relief granted in previous writ petitions before this Court? The petitioner argued that his situation is identical to the petitioners in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025 and Writ Petition (M/B) No. 79 of 2025, and therefore, he should be granted similar relief. He relied on the order passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024, where a similar opportunity was granted. The respondents, represented by the learned Brief Holder, submitted that they had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order.