Ms Om Sai Construction And Co vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Original PDF →
WPMB/663/2026HC UttarakhandGSTCNR UKHC01014016202614 August 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The petitioner, M/s OM Sai Construction & Co., challenged a show cause notice dated October 7, 2022, and an order dated March 15, 2023, issued by the Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, 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 sought similar relief as granted in a previous identical case, WPMB No. 39 of 2025.

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 cancellation order within two weeks from the date of the order. Upon filing such an application, and simultaneously furnishing all pending returns and depositing the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty, the Competent Authority is 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 did not explicitly mention any specific section of the GST Act or Rules being discussed, but the decision is based on the procedural aspect of revoking a cancelled registration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, subject to fulfilling certain conditions, considering the precedent set in WPMB No. 39 of 2025? The petitioner argued that in identical facts and circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench had allowed the petitioner in WPMB No. 39 of 2025 to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. They contended that the competent authority was directed to decide the application for revocation upon deposit of unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner urged that similar liberty should be granted to them. The respondent (State) stated that they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned precedent.

Sections Cited

None explicitly mentioned

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
UKHC010140162026 2026:UHC:7250-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY 14th August, 2026 WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO.663 of 2026 M/s OM Sai Construction & Co. ------Petitioner Versus Commissioner State Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate & Another ----Respondents Presence:- Mr. Shankar Agarwal and Mr. Ashish Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Pooja Banga, learned Standing Counsel for the State through V.C. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

1.

The petitioner has assailed the show cause notice dated 07.10.2022 and order dated 15.03.2023 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:

“8. Accordingly, present writ petition is disposed of by permitting petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. 1

UKHC010140162026

2026:UHC:7250-DB 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.

Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State 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.) Dated: 14.08.2026 PP/ 2

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.