M/S Abhayvision Construction Private Limited vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Abhayvision Construction Private Limited, 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 sought a similar relief as granted in a previous writ petition (Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025). Both counsels agreed that the facts were not in dispute and that the present case was similarly situated to the earlier one. The respondents, represented by the Commissioner, State Goods & Services Tax, Dehradun, and another, did not object to a similar order being passed.

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition should be disposed of on similar terms as Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025. The Court permitted the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order within two weeks from the date of the order. If such an application is made, and the petitioner furnishes all pending returns and deposits the unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, the Competent Authority shall consider the 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 acknowledged the agreement between counsels for both sides.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, considering the failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that a similar order should be passed in its case as was granted in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025, where the petitioner was allowed to make an application for revocation of cancellation and the Competent Authority was directed to consider it. The petitioner relied on a judgment in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024, which permitted a similar course of action. Revenue's Argument: 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.