M/S Suresh Singh Bisht vs. Commissioner SGST
Held
The Court held that the present writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 17.03.2025, which followed the order in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025. In Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, the Court permitted the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. The condition was that if the petitioner filed such an application within two weeks and furnished all pending returns, along with depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, the Competent Authority would consider the revocation prayer as per law within four weeks of receiving the application. The present petitioner, being similarly situated, was granted the same relief. The Court disposed of the writ petition on these terms, directing the petitioner to move an application for revocation within two weeks, furnish pending returns, and deposit unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. The Competent Authority was directed to consider the application within four weeks thereafter.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Suresh Singh Bisht, is a taxable person registered under the GST Act, 2017. Their GST registration was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3, via an order dated 12.03.2024. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period, as indicated in a show cause notice dated 23.02.2024. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this cancellation order. The present writ petition is identical in nature to a previous writ petition, Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, which was decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to apply for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, given their failure to furnish GST returns, as per Section 29(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 and relevant rules? The petitioner argued that a similar situation was addressed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024, where the petitioner was allowed to apply for revocation, and the Competent Authority was directed to consider it. The petitioner sought a similar order. The respondents (Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, and another) through their learned Brief Holder, stated they had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order.
Sections Cited
Section 29
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT : (per Sri G. Narendar, C.J.)
Learned counsel for the parties submit that the instant writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 17.03.2025, rendered in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 71 of 2025, which came to be passed following the order in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, which reads as under: “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Brief Holder for the State.
The facts are not in dispute. Both the counsels are at ad idem regarding the facts. Both the counsels submit that in similar facts a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while disposing of
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.