Godiyal Enterprises vs. Commissioner CGST

Facts

The petitioner, Godiyal Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The cancellation was ordered by the Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3, on March 12, 2024, due to the petitioner's failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period. The show cause notice was issued on February 23, 2024. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment where a similar petitioner was allowed to apply for revocation of cancellation. The respondent, Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Commissioner, and the State of Uttarakhand, were represented. The High Court was informed that the present petition could be disposed of in terms of a prior judgment dated March 17, 2025, which followed an order in another writ petition.

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition could be disposed of on similar terms as a previous writ petition (Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025). The petitioner was permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. If the petitioner filed such an application within two weeks from the date of the order, furnished all pending returns, and deposited the unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, the Competent Authority was directed to 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 noted that both counsels agreed that the facts were not in dispute and that the instant petitioner was similarly situated as the petitioner in the earlier writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to make an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, given the circumstances of non-furnishing of returns? (Question of law and fact, turning on the principles of natural justice and the provisions governing GST registration cancellation and revocation). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a similar order should be passed in its case, allowing it to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, citing a precedent from a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024. Revenue/State's contention: The learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand stated that she had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order.