Mseco Amica Packaging vs. Superintendent Of State Goods And Services

Held

The Court held that the instant writ petition should be disposed of in terms of Paragraph No. 8 of the order passed in WPMB No. 39 of 2025 dated 24.02.2025. This means the petitioner is permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. If the petitioner files such an application within two weeks from the date of the order, and simultaneously furnishes all pending returns, deposits the unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, the Competent Authority shall consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The Court noted that both counsels were at ad idem regarding the facts and agreed that the case was similar to the previously decided writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Eco Amica Packaging, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The cancellation order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector. 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 similar relief as granted in a previous, similar writ petition (WPMB No. 39 of 2025) decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, considering the facts are not in dispute and a similar prayer was allowed in a co-ordinate bench judgment. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that it is similarly situated as the petitioner in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, and therefore, the instant writ petition should be disposed of on similar terms, allowing it to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. The petitioner relied on a Single Judge's order in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024, where the petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation. Respondent's argument: The respondent, Superintendent of State Goods & Services, Dehradun, stated that they had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order.