M/S Aarna Healthcare vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax

Original PDF →
WPMB/703/2026HC UttarakhandGSTCNR UKHC01015191202631 August 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Aarna Healthcare, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 31.05.2024 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.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025. This means the petitioner, M/s Aarna Healthcare, is permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order within two weeks from the date of the order. Upon filing such an application, the petitioner must also furnish all pending returns and deposit the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty. The Competent Authority is then directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of receiving the application. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided, as it adopted the precedent set by the Co-ordinate Bench.

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 Argument: The petitioner contended that since a Co-ordinate Bench had allowed a similar request in WPMB No. 39 of 2025, the same liberty should be extended to the present petitioner. They relied on the operative part of the order in WPMB No. 39 of 2025, which permitted the petitioner therein to move an application for revocation upon furnishing pending returns and depositing unpaid tax along with interest and penalty. 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.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
UKHC010151912026 2026:UHC:7766-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY 31ST AUGUST, 2026 WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 703 OF 2026 M/s Aarna Healthcare …...Petitioner. Versus Commissioner Central Goods & Service Tax & another ….Respondents. Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal and Mr. Faizul Haque, learned counsel through video conferencing. Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel.

JUDGMENT :(per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)

1.

The petitioner firm has assailed the order dated 31.05.2024 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 decide the application for revocation of the cancellation order. The operative part of the order passed in the said writ petition is as follows:- 1

UKHC010151912026

2026:UHC:7766-DB

“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 appearing 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, if any, also stands disposed of.

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.

SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dated: 31st August, 2026 NISHANT 2 NISHANT KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=ad3fcb5ca64340f5dd0a4c574afa0fd63133605ca57 cdc00ec2b7462b452b326, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=7E81318F3B1BE7EAAC9370185F7C9C20892B C63A055CFD1961690560487E670C, cn=NISHANT KUMAR Date: 2026.09.01 11:10:08 +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.