Amit Kumar Garg Gstin vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax

Facts

The petitioner, Amit Kumar Garg, is a taxable person registered under the GST Act, 2017. His GST registration was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, Haridwar-Sector 3, vide 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 issued on 23.02.2024. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this cancellation order. Both counsels 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 instant writ petition should be disposed of on similar terms as Writ Petition (S/B) No. 39 of 2025. The petitioner was permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. If the petitioner filed such an application within two weeks from the date of the order, furnished all pending returns, and deposited the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty, the Competent Authority was directed to 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 did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to apply for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, given the circumstances of non-furnishing of returns. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of relevant provisions of the GST Act, 2017, concerning cancellation and revocation of registration. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a similar order should be passed in his case as was done in a previous writ petition (Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3283 of 2024), where the petitioner was allowed to make an application for revocation of cancellation and the authority was directed to consider it. The petitioner in the present case also sought a similar disposition. 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.