Manish Singh vs. Superintendent Central Goods And Services Tax
Held
The Court held that the petitioner should furnish the Geo Tag of his office/place of business within two weeks from the date of the order. If the Geo Tag is furnished within this period, the pending application for revocation of the cancellation order shall be considered and disposed of in terms of Paragraph No. 8 of the order passed in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025 dated 24.02.2025. This means that if the petitioner makes such an application within two weeks and also furnishes all pending returns and deposits 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. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, Manish Singh, is challenging the cancellation of his GST registration by the Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3, vide an order dated 12.03.2024. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period. The petitioner's application for revocation of the cancellation order under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, is pending. The respondents noted that the petitioner had not furnished the Geo Tag (latitude and longitude) of his business premises, despite a direction to do so. The court was informed that a similar writ petition (Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025) was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench on 24.02.2025 on similar facts.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to move an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, considering the pending application and the non-compliance with furnishing the Geo Tag of the business premises. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that he is similarly situated as the petitioner in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025 and therefore, the instant writ petition should be disposed of on similar terms. They relied on a previous judgment where a petitioner was permitted to make an application for revocation and the authority was directed to consider it. Respondents' contention: The respondents submitted that the petitioner's application for revocation is pending. They highlighted that the petitioner has failed to furnish the Geo Tag of the premises, despite a direction. They did not object to the petitioner being permitted to move the application for revocation.
Sections Cited
Section 30
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT :(per Mr. G. Narendar, C.J.)
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Brief Holder for the State. 2) The facts are not in dispute. Both the counsels are at ad idem regarding the facts. Both the counsels submit that in similar facts a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while disposing of Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025 dated 24.02.2025, was pleased to hold and order as follows : “Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the petitioner. 1
2025:UHC:4698-DB
Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand through video conferencing.
Petitioner is a taxable person, registered under GST Act, 2017. His GST registration has been cancelled by A
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.