Agarwal Machinery Store vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition should be disposed of on similar terms as the order passed in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025. The reasoning was based on the agreement of both counsels that the facts were not in dispute and the petitioner was similarly situated to the petitioner in the earlier case. The Court permitted the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. If the petitioner makes such an application within two weeks from the date of the order, furnishes all pending returns, and deposits the unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, the Competent Authority shall consider the prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The ratio is that in cases of GST registration cancellation due to non-filing of returns, where the petitioner is similarly situated to previous successful writ petitions, the High Court can direct the authority to consider revocation applications upon compliance with stipulated conditions.

Facts

The petitioner, Agarwal Machinery Store, is a taxable person registered under the GST Act, 2017. Their GST registration was cancelled 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, as indicated in the show cause notice dated 23.02.2024. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this cancellation order. Both parties agreed that the facts are not in dispute and that the present case is similar to a previous writ petition (Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025) disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to make an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, considering their failure to furnish returns. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that a similar order was passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024, allowing the petitioner to apply for revocation of cancellation and directing the Competent Authority to consider the application. They sought a similar direction in their case. Respondents' Argument: The learned Brief Holder for the State submitted that they had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order.