Ms Deepak Enterprises vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ petition should be disposed of on similar terms as the previous orders. The reasoning was that the cancellation of GST registration was on account of non-filing of periodical returns, and the petitioners had undertaken to pay the tax along with interest and penalty. The Court found that this approach does not cause prejudice or loss to the department and also involves the fundamental right to carry out trade or business. Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to allow the writ petition on the terms previously granted in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 544 of 2025. The operative direction was that the petitioner would be permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. If the application was made within two weeks and all pending returns were furnished along with the deposit of unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, the Competent Authority would consider the prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks of receiving the application.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Deepak Enterprises, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The cancellation was ordered by the Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3, due to the petitioner's failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period. The petitioner sought disposal of its case in terms of a previous order passed by a co-ordinate bench in a similar writ petition. The respondents, Union of India and others, were represented by their respective counsel. The facts of the case were not disputed by either party.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, whose GST registration was cancelled for non-furnishing of returns, should be permitted to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, considering the principles laid down in previous judgments of this Court? The petitioner argued that its case was similar to that in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 544 of 2025 and Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025, where similar relief was granted. The petitioner relied on a judgment in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024, which permitted a petitioner to apply for revocation of cancellation and directed the authority to consider it. The respondents, through their counsel, had no objection to the petitioner being permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order, provided the pending returns were furnished and unpaid tax, along with interest and penalty, was deposited.