Ms Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. State Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition should be disposed of on similar terms as Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025 and Writ Petition (M/B) No. 79 of 2025. The petitioner was permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order within two weeks from the date of the order. If such an application was made, and all pending returns were furnished, along with the deposit of unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, the Competent Authority was directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The Court noted that the facts were not in dispute and both counsels were in agreement regarding the facts and the desired outcome based on previous judgments.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Monolith Resorts Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The cancellation was ordered by the Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3, on March 12, 2024, due to the petitioner's failure to furnish GST returns for a prescribed period. The show cause notice was issued on February 23, 2024. The petitioner argued that the issue was similar to those dealt with by the High Court in previous writ petitions, specifically Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025 and Writ Petition (M/B) No. 79 of 2025. The respondent, the State Tax Officer, did not object to the petitioner being permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to make an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, considering the precedent set in similar cases before this Court? 2. Whether the Competent Authority should be directed to consider the petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation, if filed within the stipulated period and all pending returns are furnished along with unpaid tax, interest, and penalty? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the present case was factually similar to Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, where a learned Single Judge permitted the petitioner to apply for revocation of cancellation and directed the Competent Authority to consider it. They sought a similar order. Respondent's Contention: The learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand submitted that she had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order.