M/S Umair Timber Traders vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Umair Timber Traders, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging an order of cancellation of its GST registration. The cancellation was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3, on March 12, 2024. The reason for cancellation, as indicated in the show cause notice dated February 23, 2024, was the petitioner's failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period. The petitioner argued that the facts were similar to a previous case, Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025, which was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court on February 24, 2025. The respondents, represented by the Commissioner, State Goods & Services Tax, Dehradun, and another, did not object to a similar disposal.

Held

The Court held that since both counsels were at 'ad idem' regarding the facts and submitted that the instant petitioner was similarly situated as the petitioner in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025, the instant writ petition should be disposed of on similar terms. The Court adopted the operative directions from the order dated February 24, 2025, in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025. Accordingly, the petitioner was permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order within two weeks from the date of the order. If the petitioner filed such an application and also furnished all pending returns and deposited the unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, the Competent Authority was directed to consider the prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, M/s Umair Timber Traders, should be granted the same relief as granted in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025, concerning the cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that its case was factually similar to the petitioner in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025 and therefore, a similar order should be passed. The petitioner relied on a judgment in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024, where the court permitted the petitioner to apply for revocation of cancellation and directed the authority to consider it. Respondents' 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.