M/S Asu Sport Having Its Place Of Business vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Asu Sports, is a taxable person registered under the GST Act, 2017. The Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3, cancelled the petitioner's GST registration on March 12, 2024. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed period, as indicated in a show cause notice dated February 23, 2024. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this cancellation order. 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.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition should be disposed of on similar terms as a previous Co-ordinate Bench decision in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025. The reasoning was based on the agreement of both counsels that the facts were not in dispute and that the instant petitioner was similarly situated to the petitioner in the earlier writ petition. The Court permitted the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. The operative direction was that if the petitioner files 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 prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to make an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, considering the facts of the case and the precedent set by a Co-ordinate Bench. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a similar order should be passed in their case, allowing them to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, relying on a judgment by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024. 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.