M/S Uttarakhand Harikvira Bahudeshiya Sahkari Samitii LTD. vs. State Of Uttarakhand
Held
The Court held that the petitioner should be permitted to furnish the Geo Tag (latitude and longitude) of its office/place of business within two weeks from the date of the order. If this condition is met, the Competent Authority shall consider and dispose of the petitioner's pending application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation in terms of paragraph 8 of the order passed in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025 dated 24.02.2025. This means the authority will consider the prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the Geo Tag, provided the petitioner also furnishes all pending returns and deposits unpaid tax along with interest and penalty. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Uttarakhand Harikvira Bahudeshiya Sahkari Samiti Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its 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 sought similar relief as granted in a previous writ petition (WPMB No. 39 of 2025) where the petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation of cancellation. In the present case, the petitioner's application for revocation under Section 30 of the CGST Act was pending. The respondents noted that the petitioner had not furnished the Geo Tag (latitude and longitude) of its business premises, despite a direction from the authority, which was causing the delay in processing the application.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to furnish the Geo Tag of its business premises and have its pending application for revocation of GST registration cancellation considered by the Competent Authority, similar to the relief granted in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that it is similarly situated to the petitioner in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025 and therefore, the writ petition should be disposed of on similar terms, allowing it to rectify the pending procedural requirement. Respondents' contention: The respondents acknowledged the pending application for revocation. They highlighted that the delay was due to the petitioner's failure to provide the Geo Tag of its business premises, as directed by the authority. They agreed that if the Geo Tag is furnished, the application could be considered and disposed of as per law, in line with the directions in the previously decided writ petition.
Sections Cited
Section 30
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT :(per Mr. G. Narendar, C.J.)
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Brief Holder for the State and learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 2) The facts are not in dispute. The counsels are at ad idem regarding the facts. Learned counsels submit that in similar facts a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while disposing of Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025 dated 24.02.2025, was pleased to hold and order as follows: “Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand through video conferenc
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.