Kiaan Enterprises vs. Commissioner Goods And Services Tax State GST

Facts

The petitioner, Kiaan Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Goods and Services Tax State, GST, Dehradun, which cancelled the petitioner's GST registration. The cancellation was based on the ground that the petitioner failed to file GST returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner argued that a Co-ordinate Bench had granted similar relief in an identical case, WPMB No.39 of 2025. In that case, the petitioner was permitted to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, with a direction to the competent authority to decide the application. The petitioner sought similar liberty in the present case.

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, 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 receipt of the application. The reasoning is based on the precedent set by a Co-ordinate Bench in an identical case, and the State/Revenue's lack of objection to this course of action. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue 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 Co-ordinate Bench had allowed a similar writ petition (WPMB No.39 of 2025) by permitting the petitioner therein to apply for revocation of cancellation, subject to compliance with certain conditions, 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. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the State/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.