Kiran Joshi vs. State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Kiran Joshi, a taxable person registered under the GST Act, 2017, had their GST registration cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Officer, 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. The petitioner challenged this cancellation order by filing a writ petition. Both parties agreed that the facts were not in dispute and that the case was similar to a previous writ petition (Writ Petition (S/B) No.39 of 2025) decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court on 24.02.2025, which was also followed in another case (WPMB No.80 of 2025). The petitioner sought a similar disposal order.

Held

The Court held that the instant writ petition should be disposed of on similar terms as the previous writ petition (Writ Petition (S/B) No.39 of 2025). The Court permitted the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. The operative direction was that if the petitioner makes such an application within two weeks from the date of the order, and also furnishes all pending returns, and deposits the unpaid tax along with 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. The Court noted that the facts were not in dispute and both counsels were in agreement regarding the disposal.

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-filing of returns, and if so, what directions should be issued to the Competent Authority? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of provisions related to GST registration cancellation and revocation). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a similar order should be passed in their case as was done in a previous writ petition (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 sought a similar relief. Respondents' 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.