M/S Ram Singh Patel Gstin vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Ram Singh Patel, is a taxable person registered under the GST Act, 2017. Their GST registration was 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 the show cause notice dated 23.02.2024. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this cancellation order. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment where a similar petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation of cancellation, and the authority was directed to consider it. The State counsel had no objection to a similar order being passed.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition could be disposed of in terms of a previous judgment dated 17.03.2025, which followed an order in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025. In that prior case, the Court had permitted the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. The Court directed that if the petitioner filed such an application within two weeks and furnished all pending returns, along with depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, the Competent Authority would consider the prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks of receiving the application. The present writ petition was disposed of on similar terms, allowing the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to fulfilling the conditions of filing pending returns and depositing dues.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to apply for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order dated 12.03.2024, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3, on account of non-furnishing of GST returns. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a similar relief was granted in a previous case (Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024) where the petitioner was allowed to make an application for revocation, and the Competent Authority was directed to consider it. The petitioner sought a similar order in their case. 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.
Sections Cited
GST Act, 2017
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.80 of 2025, which came to be passed following the judgment in Writ Petition (S/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 2025dated 24.02.2025, was pleased to hold and order as follows: “M
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.