Prime Figure Gym And Fitness Centre vs. Commissioner State Godds And Service Tax

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition was similarly situated to Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025 and Writ Petition (M/B) No. 79 of 2025, which had been disposed of on similar terms. Following the precedent set in those cases, the Court permitted the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. The Court directed that if the petitioner filed such an application within two weeks from the date of the order, and also furnished all pending returns, deposited the unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, the Competent Authority would consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The Court explicitly adopted the terms of relief granted in paragraph 8 of the order dated February 24, 2025, in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025.

Facts

The petitioner, Prime Figure Gym & Fitness Centre, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging the cancellation of its 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 decided in previous writ petitions, specifically Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025 and Writ Petition (M/B) No. 79 of 2025, which were disposed of on February 24, 2025, and March 17, 2025, respectively. The respondents, represented by the Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, did not object to the petitioner's request for similar relief.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to apply for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, similar to the relief granted in previous writ petitions before this Court? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that its case was factually identical to Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025 and Writ Petition (M/B) No. 79 of 2025. It relied on a Single Judge's order in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024, where the petitioner was allowed to apply for revocation of cancellation, and the authority was directed to consider the application. The petitioner sought a similar order. Respondents' Contention: The learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand submitted that she had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order.