Kanhiya Lal vs. Commissioner Uttarakhan State Goods And Services Dehradun

Facts

The petitioner, Kanhiya Lal, assailed an order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Uttarakhand State Goods and Services Tax & another, which cancelled the petitioner firm's GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file Goods and Services Tax (GST) returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner argued that a co-ordinate bench had granted similar relief in an identical case, WPMB No. 39 of 2025, allowing the petitioner to apply for revocation of cancellation subject to depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner sought similar liberty. The respondents, represented by the Standing Counsel for the State, had no objection to the petition being disposed of on similar terms.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025. This meant that the petitioner was permitted to move an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order. The petitioner was directed to file such an application within two weeks from the date of the order. Additionally, the petitioner was required to furnish all pending returns and deposit the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty. Upon fulfillment of these conditions, 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 also disposed of any pending applications.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to apply for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, similar to the relief granted in WPMB No. 39 of 2025, considering the cancellation was due to non-filing of returns. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that in identical facts and circumstances, a co-ordinate bench had permitted the petitioner therein to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. This relief was subject to the deposit of unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, after which 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 the aforementioned case.