M/S Alaknanda Sales Corporation vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. The petitioner was directed to make such an application within two weeks from the date of the order. Concurrently, the petitioner must furnish all pending returns and deposit the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty. Upon receipt of the application and compliance, the Competent Authority is directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks. The Court also clarified that if the petitioner believes the tax calculated is excessive due to mathematical or calculation errors, they can work out a calculation, submit it, and make an application for a refund of the excessive amount, which will be considered strictly in accordance with law. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Alaknanda Sales Corporation, is a taxable person registered under the GST Act, 2017. Their GST registration was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3, on March 12, 2024, due to failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period. A show cause notice was issued on February 23, 2024. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation order. The State counsel indicated no objection if the petitioner were permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. The Court noted that in a similar case, Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, the petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation, and the Competent Authority was directed to consider it. The petitioner in the present case sought similar relief.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, despite the cancellation being based on non-furnishing of returns and a prior rejection of a revocation application. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that they are similarly situated to the petitioner in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, and therefore, should be granted similar relief, which involved being permitted to move an application for revocation. They relied on a Single Judge's order in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024, where a similar direction was issued. Revenue/State's argument: The learned Brief Holder for the State submitted that she had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order. However, the State counsel later elaborated that the petitioner's application under Section 30 of the CGST Act for revocation had already been rejected, and the petitioner had failed to furnish a reply to the show-cause notice within the specified time, leading to the dismissal of their revocation application.