Ashu Enterprises vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner, Ashu Enterprises, to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. This decision was based on the principle of parity with a previous judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, which itself followed the order in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024. The Court directed that if the petitioner files such an application within two weeks from the date of the order, and simultaneously furnishes all pending returns, deposits unpaid tax along with interest, and pays any penalty amount, the Competent Authority shall consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The Court noted that both counsels agreed to dispose of the matter on similar terms as the previous judgments.

Facts

The petitioner, Ashu Enterprises, 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 the show cause notice dated 23.02.2024. The petitioner challenged this cancellation order by filing a writ petition. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment where a similar petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation of cancellation, and the authority was directed to consider the application. The respondents, represented by the learned Brief Holder for the State, had no objection to a similar order being passed. The current writ petition was disposed of in terms of a prior judgment concerning a similarly situated petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, Ashu Enterprises, should be permitted to file an application for revocation of the cancellation of its GST registration, similar to the relief granted in a previous, factually identical case (Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024)? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that since their situation is similar to the petitioner in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024, they should be granted the same relief, which involved being permitted to apply for revocation of the cancellation order. They relied on the judgment in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024. 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.