Karandeep Singh vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax

Held

The Court noted that the facts of the present case were not in dispute and were similar to those in previously decided writ petitions. Following the precedent set in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, which was disposed of on February 24, 2025, the Court permitted the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation. 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 the unpaid tax along with interest, and pays any penalty amount, the Competent Authority shall consider the prayer for revocation in accordance with the law within four weeks of receiving the application. The Court explicitly adopted the relief granted in paragraph 8 of the order dated February 24, 2025.

Facts

The petitioner, Karandeep Singh, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging the cancellation of his GST registration. The cancellation order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3, on March 12, 2024, due to the petitioner's failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period. The petitioner argued that his case was similar to previous writ petitions (W.P. (M/B) No. 39 of 2025 and W.P. (M/B) No. 79 of 2025) that were disposed of by the same Court on similar terms. The respondents, represented by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, did not object to the petitioner's request for a similar disposal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, whose GST registration has been cancelled for non-furnishing of returns, should be granted permission to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, similar to the relief granted in previous writ petitions? The petitioner contended that his situation is identical to that of the petitioners in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025 and Writ Petition (M/B) No. 79 of 2025, which were disposed of by the Court on specific terms. He sought a similar order. The respondents, through their counsel, stated they had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order.