Kaushalender Kumar Singh vs. Assistant Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, a taxable person registered under the GST Act, 2017, had their GST registration cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, Dehradun, Sector-7, via an order dated 05.08.2023. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to furnish GST returns for six consecutive months. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached the High Court. The petitioner's counsel drew the court's attention to a previous order by a coordinate bench in a similar writ petition and requested that the current petition be decided on the same terms. The counsel for the State had no objection to this course of action.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. The petitioner was directed to submit this application within two weeks from the date of the order. Concurrently, the petitioner was required to furnish all pending GST returns and deposit the unpaid tax, along with applicable interest and penalty amounts. Upon receipt of the revocation application and compliance with the aforementioned conditions, the Competent Authority was directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation of the cancellation order in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of receiving the application. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, as the matter was resolved by directing a procedural path for revocation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition should be decided in terms of the order passed by a coordinate bench in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025, concerning the cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the writ petition should be decided in terms of the order passed by a coordinate bench in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025, implying a favorable outcome based on precedent. The petitioner relied on the principle of parity and the established practice of coordinate benches. Revenue's contention: The State, through its counsel, submitted that it had no objection if the petition was decided in terms of the aforementioned order of the coordinate bench. This indicated the State's willingness to accept the outcome dictated by the precedent.