Anil Bhandari vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Anil Bhandari, assailed an order dated 03.07.2026 passed by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, which cancelled the petitioner's 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 of the High Court had, in identical circumstances in WPMB No. 39 of 2025, allowed the petitioner therein to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner sought similar relief. The Revenue had no objection to the petition being disposed of on similar terms.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition should be disposed of 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 cancellation order within two weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner was also required to furnish all pending returns and deposit the unpaid tax along with interest and the amount of penalty. Upon fulfillment of these conditions, the Competent Authority was directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The reasoning was based on the precedent established by a co-ordinate bench in a similar case, and the Revenue's lack of objection to this course of action. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity to apply for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, given the precedent set in a similar case before a co-ordinate bench? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that in identical facts and circumstances, a co-ordinate bench in WPMB No. 39 of 2025 had permitted the petitioner therein to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. This permission was granted subject to the petitioner furnishing pending returns and depositing 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 granted in the present case. Revenue's Contention: 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 judgment text provided, beyond the general reference to GST registration and returns.
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 03.07.2026 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner proprietorship concern 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 decide the application for revocation of the cancellation 1
UKHC010172132026
2026:UHC:8805-DB 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=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13aaf 116e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5757, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC51 A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C18DB 2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2026.09.30 10:41:11 +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.