Ms R K Engineering Works vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax Commissionerate

Facts

The petitioner, M/s R.K. Engineering Works, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its 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, as indicated in a show cause notice issued on 23.02.2024. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment where a similar petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation of cancellation, with the authority directed to consider the application. The respondents, represented by the learned Brief Holder for the State, had no objection to a similar order being passed. The present writ petition was disposed of in terms of a prior judgment dated 17.03.2025, which itself followed an order in Writ Petition (M/B) No.39 of 2025.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 17.03.2025, which was passed following the order in Writ Petition (M/B) No.39 of 2025. The petitioner was permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. If the petitioner made such an application within two weeks from the date of the order and also furnished all pending returns and deposited unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, the Competent Authority was directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The Court found no dispute regarding the facts and agreed that the present petitioner was similarly situated to the petitioner in the earlier writ petition. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition on the terms outlined in paragraph 8 of the order dated 24.02.2025 in Writ Petition (M/B) No.39 of 2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, M/s R.K. Engineering Works, should be permitted to make an application for revocation of the cancellation of its GST registration, similar to the relief granted in a previous co-ordinate bench judgment (Writ Petition (M/B) No.39 of 2025)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that it is similarly situated to the petitioner in Writ Petition (M/B) No.39 of 2025 and therefore should be granted similar relief. They relied on the judgment in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024, which allowed a petitioner to apply for revocation of cancellation and directed the Competent Authority to consider it. Respondents' contention: The learned Brief Holder for the State submitted that they had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order.