Balam Singh vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Balam Singh, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 26.06.2025 that cancelled its GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner argued that a Co-ordinate Bench had previously granted similar relief in an identical case, WPMB No. 39 of 2025. In that case, the petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, with the authority directed to decide the application. The petitioner sought similar liberty in the present case. The respondents, represented by the Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, had no objection to the petition being disposed of on the same terms.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition should be disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that the facts and circumstances were identical to the previous case, where a Co-ordinate Bench had provided a specific procedural path for the petitioner to seek revocation of the cancellation order. The Court accepted the respondents' lack of objection to this approach. The operative directions were that the petitioner would be permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. 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 as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of such application. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to file an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, similar to the relief granted in WPMB No. 39 of 2025, considering the identical facts and circumstances? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under GST law). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that in a case with identical facts and circumstances (WPMB No. 39 of 2025), a Co-ordinate Bench had allowed the petitioner therein to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. This relief was granted subject to the petitioner filing pending returns and depositing unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, and the competent authority was directed to decide the revocation application. The petitioner urged that similar liberty should be extended to them. Respondents' Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand stated that they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025.