Rahul Jeswal vs. Superintendent CGST Haldwani

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition could be disposed of on similar terms as Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025. The reasoning was based on the submission of both parties that the petitioner was similarly situated to the petitioner in the earlier case. The Court allowed the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. This relief is contingent upon the petitioner making such an application within two weeks from the date of the order and furnishing all pending returns, along with depositing the unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. The Competent Authority is directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Rahul Jeswal, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging an order that cancelled his GST registration. The cancellation was reportedly due to the petitioner's failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period. The petitioner sought relief similar to that granted in a previous case, Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025. In that case, the court had permitted the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, provided pending returns were furnished and unpaid tax, interest, and penalty were deposited. The respondent, the Superintendent (CGST), Haldwani, did not object to a similar disposal in the present case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity to apply for revocation of his GST registration cancellation, given his failure to furnish GST returns, in light of previous judgments of this Court? The petitioner argued that the instant writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 08.07.2025 in Writ Petition No. 405 of 2025, which in turn followed the order in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025. This previous judgment allowed a petitioner to apply for revocation of GST registration cancellation upon furnishing pending returns and depositing dues. The respondent, represented by learned counsel, submitted that the instant petitioner was similarly situated and the petition could be disposed of on similar terms, indicating no objection to the proposed relief.