M/S C F C Carriers PVT LTD vs. Commissioner Of The S G S T Commissionerate At Dehradun

Facts

The petitioner, M/s CFC Carriers Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court. There was no representation for the petitioner. The Court heard the learned Brief Holder for the respondent-State. The facts of this petition were stated to be similar to those in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 80 of 2025. This earlier writ petition, 'Amit Kumar Garg Vs Commissioner State Goods and Services Tax', decided on March 17, 2025, involved a similar situation where the petitioner's GST registration had been cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3, vide an order dated March 12, 2024, due to failure to furnish GST returns. The petitioner in that case had relied on a Single Judge's order permitting an application for revocation of cancellation.

Held

The Court held that the facts of the instant writ petition were similar to those in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 80 of 2025. Following the order passed in that petition, which in turn was based on Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025, the present writ petition was also disposed of with similar directions. The operative part of the order in the earlier writ petition (Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025) permitted the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order within two weeks. If such an application was made and all pending returns were furnished, along with the deposit of unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, the Competent Authority was directed to consider the prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks of receiving the application. The present petition was disposed of on these same terms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner in the present writ petition, M/s CFC Carriers Pvt. Ltd., is entitled to similar relief as granted in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 80 of 2025, which was disposed of on March 17, 2025, based on the principles laid down in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025 decided on February 24, 2025. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, being similarly situated, should be granted the same relief as in the aforementioned cases, allowing them to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. Respondent's contention: The learned Brief Holder for the respondent-State had no objection to the petitioner being permitted to move an appropriate application for revocation of the cancellation order, as stated in the earlier judgments.