Ms Chandra Shekar Joshi vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax

Held

The Court decided to dispose of the writ petition on terms similar to those granted in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, disposed of on 24.02.2025. The petitioner is permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. If the petitioner files such an application within two weeks from the date of the order, and simultaneously furnishes all pending returns, deposits the unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, 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 were at 'ad idem' regarding the facts and agreed that the instant petitioner was similarly situated as the petitioner in the previously decided writ petitions.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Chandra Shekar Joshi, 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 a show cause notice dated 23.02.2024. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this cancellation order. The petitioner argued that the issue was similar to those dealt with in previous writ petitions, specifically Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025 and Writ Petition (M/B) No. 79 of 2025, which were disposed of by the High Court on similar terms.

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 GST returns for the prescribed period. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that their case was similar to previous writ petitions decided by the Court, specifically Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025 and Writ Petition (M/B) No. 79 of 2025. They relied on a judgment in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024, where the petitioner was allowed to apply for revocation of cancellation, and the authority was directed to consider it. The petitioner sought a similar order. Respondents' contention: The learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand stated that they had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order.