Saneshiya Ram vs. Commissioner State Goods And Service Tax

Held

The Court noted that the facts were not in dispute and that both counsels were in agreement. The Court referred to a previous order in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, disposed of on February 24, 2025. In that order, the Court had permitted the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order within two weeks, provided all pending returns were furnished and unpaid tax, along with interest and penalty, was deposited. The Competent Authority was then directed to consider the revocation application as per law within four weeks of its receipt. The present petitioner, being similarly situated, was granted the same relief. The Court disposed of the writ petition on these terms, allowing the petitioner to apply for revocation of the GST registration cancellation, subject to fulfilling the conditions of furnishing pending returns and depositing dues, and directing the Competent Authority to consider the application.

Facts

The petitioner, Saneshiya Ram, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of his GST registration by the Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3, vide an order dated March 12, 2024. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period. 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 respondents, represented by the Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, did not object to a similar disposal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to make an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, considering the failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the present case is factually similar to Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, where a Co-ordinate Bench permitted the petitioner to apply for revocation of a cancellation order. The petitioner sought a similar order in this case, relying on a Single Judge's decision in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024. Respondents' contention: The learned Brief Holder for the State submitted that they had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order.