M/S Shree Balaji Stone Industries vs. Superintendent Central Goods And Services Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Shree Balaji Stone Industries, has challenged an order dated 14.05.2024, passed by the Superintendent, Central Goods and Services Tax, Ramnagar, which cancelled the petitioner's GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file GST returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner relies on a previous order from a Co-ordinate Bench in WPMB No. 39 of 2025, where a similar petitioner was allowed to apply for revocation of their GST registration cancellation. This involved filing pending returns and depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty.
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025. This means the petitioner is permitted to move an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order. If the petitioner files such an application within two weeks from the date of the order, and simultaneously 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 in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The reasoning is based on parity with the earlier order in a similar case, and the Revenue's lack of objection to this course of action. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of GST registration cancellation due to non-filing of returns, where the facts are identical to a previously decided case, similar relief can be granted to maintain consistency and fairness, provided the petitioner complies with the stipulated conditions.
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? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the facts and circumstances of their case are identical to those in WPMB No. 39 of 2025. They contended that a Co-ordinate Bench had permitted the petitioner in that case to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to fulfilling certain conditions. The petitioner urged that similar liberty should be extended to them. Revenue's Argument: The learned counsel for the Revenue stated that they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the operative part of the judgment, but the context implies provisions related to cancellation and revocation of GST registration.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT: (per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
1)
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 14.05.2024 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner firm on the ground that it had failed to file the returns within prescribed period. 2)
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in identical facts and circumstances in WPMB No.39 of 2025 a Co-ordinate Bench has permitted the petitioner therein to file application for revocation of the cancellation order and subject to deposit of unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, the competent authority has been directed to 1
UKHC010172462026
2026:UHC:8808-DB decide the application for revocation of the cancellation order. The operative part of the order passed in the said writ petition is as follows:
“8. Accordingly, present writ petition is disposed of by permitting petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. If he makes such application within two weeks from today and also furnishes all the pending returns and deposits unpaid tax along with interest and amount of 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.”
3)
It is urged that similar liberty may be granted to the petitioner. 4)
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the Revenue has no objection in case the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms. 5)
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No.39 of 2025. 6)
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
_______________________
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
_________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026 Negi
2 HIMANS HU NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13aaf11 6e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5757, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC51A 722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C18DB2A 1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2026.09.30 10:42:23 +05'30'
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.