M/S Ramsharan vs. Commsissioner State Goods And Services Tax

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Ramsharan, M/s Kavindra Singh Aswal, and M/s Amit, filed writ petitions before the Uttarakhand High Court. These petitions challenged the cancellation of their GST registrations by the Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3. The cancellation was based on the petitioners' failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period. The show cause notices issued to the petitioners indicated this reason for cancellation. The petitioners sought relief similar to that granted in a previous case, Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, where the court had allowed the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order.

Held

The Court held that the instant writ petitions could be disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 17.03.2025, rendered in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 71 of 2025, which followed the order in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025. The Court noted that the facts were not in dispute and both counsels were at 'ad idem' regarding the facts. The Court disposed of the present writ petitions by permitting the petitioners to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. If such an application was made within two weeks from the date of the order, and all pending returns were furnished, along with unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, the Competent Authority was directed to consider the prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the receipt of the application. This decision was based on the precedent set in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners, being similarly situated as the petitioner in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, are entitled to similar relief regarding the cancellation of their GST registration? The petitioner's contention was that their GST registration was cancelled due to failure to furnish returns, and they relied on a previous judgment by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024. In that case, the petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, and the Competent Authority was directed to consider the application. The petitioners argued for a similar order in their cases. The respondent (State) submitted that they had no objection if the petitioners were permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order.