Tania Enterprises vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. This decision was made on the basis that the petitioner was similarly situated to the petitioner in a prior writ petition (Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025), which was disposed of on similar terms. The operative directions, as per the earlier judgment, stipulated that if the petitioner files such an application within two weeks from the date of the order and also furnishes all pending returns and deposits 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 Court noted that the submissions of both counsels were placed on record and the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the relief granted in paragraph 8 of the earlier judgment.

Facts

The petitioner, Tania Enterprises, is a taxable person registered under the GST Act, 2017. Its 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 issued on 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 revenue had no objection to a similar order being passed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, Tania Enterprises, should be permitted to file an application for revocation of its GST registration cancellation order dated 12.03.2024, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3, on account of failure to furnish GST returns. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a similar order was passed in a previous case (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. They sought a similar relief. Respondents' contention: 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.