Bankelal Chaudhary vs. The Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, Bankelal Chaudhary, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 5, 2026, which cancelled the GST registration of the petitioner's firm. The cancellation was based on the firm's failure to file returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner argued that a coordinate bench, in an identical case (WPMB No. 39 of 2025), had permitted the petitioner therein to apply for revocation of the cancellation order. This permission was granted subject to the deposit of unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, with the competent authority directed to decide the revocation application. The petitioner sought similar relief. The respondents, represented by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Dehradun, 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. This means the petitioner is permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. If the petitioner files 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 in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The reasoning is based on the precedent set by a coordinate bench in an identical case. The operative directions are to permit the filing of the revocation application and direct the authority to consider it subject to the petitioner fulfilling the conditions of filing returns and making payments. 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, given the identical facts and circumstances? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that since a coordinate bench had allowed a similar petition by permitting the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order upon depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, and directing the authority to consider the application, the same relief should be extended to the present petitioner. They relied on the operative part of the order in WPMB No. 39 of 2025. Respondents' Contention: The learned counsel for the respondents stated that they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025.