Danish Saifi vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Danish Saifi, a taxable person registered under the GST Act, 2017, had his GST registration cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3, via 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 dated 23.02.2024. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this cancellation order. Both parties agreed that the facts were not in dispute and that the instant case was similar to a previous writ petition (Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025) disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court on 24.02.2025.

Held

The Court held that the instant writ petition should be disposed of on similar terms as Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025. The petitioner was permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. This permission was conditional upon the petitioner depositing all arrears, along with applicable interest and penalty, within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. If the petitioner failed to make the deposit within the stipulated two weeks, they would not be entitled to the benefit of the Court's order. The Competent Authority was implicitly directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation as per law, provided the conditions were met, mirroring the directions in the earlier judgment.

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 provisions related to cancellation and revocation of GST registration). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a similar order should be passed in their case as was done in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024, where the petitioner was allowed to apply for revocation and the authority was directed to consider it. The petitioner also submitted that they were similarly situated to the petitioner in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025 and requested disposal on similar terms. Revenue/State's 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.