Sharma Enterprises vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax

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 reasoning was based on the submission by both counsels that the petitioner was similarly situated to the petitioners in those earlier cases. The Court permitted the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. The operative direction was that if the petitioner files such an application within two weeks from the date of the order, furnishes all pending returns, and deposits the 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. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Sharma Enterprises, 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 its case was similar to previous writ petitions (Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025 and Writ Petition (M/B) No. 79 of 2025) decided by the same High Court. The respondents, represented by the Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, 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 file an application for revocation of the cancellation of its GST registration, considering its failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that its situation was identical to that 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 similar terms. They relied on a previous judgment by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024, where the petitioner was allowed to apply for revocation. Respondents' contention: 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.