Ms R S Construction vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Held

The Court held 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 followed the order in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025. The Court found that the petitioner, M/s R.S. Construction, was similarly situated to the petitioner in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. The operative direction was that if the petitioner makes 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 petitioner's prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s R.S. Construction, 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 a similar relief as granted in a previous writ petition (W.P.(M/B) No. 39 of 2025), where the court had permitted the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order. The respondents, represented by the Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Dehradun, and another, did not object to this course of action. The current writ petition was disposed of in terms of the relief granted in the earlier case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, M/s R.S. Construction, should be granted permission to file an application for revocation of its GST registration cancellation, similar to the relief granted in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the GST Act, 2017). 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, should be granted the same relief. They relied on the order passed in that petition, which allowed the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order. Respondents' contention: The respondents, represented by the learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand, submitted that they had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order.