M/S M B M Polymers vs. State Tax Officer
Facts
The petitioner, M/s MBM Polymers, 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. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment where a similar petitioner was allowed to apply for revocation of cancellation, with the authority directed to consider the application. The State Tax Officer and the other respondent did not object to a similar order being passed in this case. The present writ petition was disposed of on similar terms as a previous, related writ petition.
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order. The Court directed that if the petitioner files such an application within two weeks from the date of the order, and simultaneously furnishes all pending returns and deposits the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty, the Competent Authority shall consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. This decision was based on the submissions of both counsels and followed the terms of a previous judgment in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to make an application for revocation of the cancellation of its GST registration, considering its failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a similar order was passed in a previous writ petition (Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024), allowing the petitioner to apply for revocation and directing the Competent Authority to consider it. They sought a similar disposition for the present case. Revenue/State's contention: The learned Brief Holder for the State submitted that she had no objection if the petitioner was permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order.
Sections Cited
Section 29
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT :(per Mr. G. Narendar, C.J.)
Learned counsel for the parties submit that the instant writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 17.03.2025, rendered in Writ Petition (M/B) No.71 of 2025, which came to be passed following the order in Writ Petition (M/B) No.39 of 2025, which reads as under:- “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Brief Holder for the State. 2) The facts are not in dispute. Both the counsels are at ad idem regarding the facts. Both the counsels submit that in similar facts a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while disposing of Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025 dated 24.02.2025, was pleased to hold and order as follows: “Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.