M/S Shahid Construction vs. Commissioner Of SGST
Held
The Court held that the instant writ petition should be disposed of on similar terms as Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025. This means the petitioner is permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order within two weeks from the date of the order. If the petitioner files such an application and also furnishes all pending returns, 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 explicitly leave any issue undecided. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of GST registration cancellation due to non-filing of returns, if the petitioner is willing to regularize their compliance, the High Court may grant an opportunity to seek revocation of cancellation, following established precedents.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Shahid Construction, is a taxable person registered under the GST Act, 2017. Their GST registration was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3, via an order dated 12.03.2024. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period, as indicated in a show cause notice dated 23.02.2024. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this cancellation order. Both parties agreed that the facts were not in dispute and that the instant case was similar to a previously decided matter, Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39/2025.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to make an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, and if so, under what conditions. The petitioner argued that a similar order should be passed in their case, allowing them to apply for revocation of the cancellation. The respondents (Commissioner of SGST and another) stated they had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order. The court's decision was based on the agreement of both counsels and the precedent set in a similar case.
Sections Cited
Section 129
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT : (per Sri G. Narendar, C.J.)
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Brief Holder for the State.
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 (S/B) No. 39/2025 vide order dated 24.02.2025, was pleased to hold and order as follows : “Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand through video conferencing.
Petitioner is a taxable person, registered under G
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.