Dev Engineering And Construction Works vs. Commissioner State Goods And Service Tax

Facts

The petitioner, Dev Engineering And Construction Works, has challenged an order dated 28.07.2025 issued by the Commissioner State Goods & Service Tax & Another, 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, in a similar case (WPMB No.39 of 2025), had permitted the petitioner in that case to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. This permission was 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.

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 GST registration cancellation order. The petitioner was directed to file such an application within two weeks from the date of the order. Additionally, the petitioner was required to furnish all pending returns and deposit the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty. Upon receipt of the application and compliance with these conditions, the Competent Authority was 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 ratio decidendi is that in cases of GST registration cancellation due to non-filing of returns, where similar relief was granted in a precedent case, the court may grant a similar opportunity for revocation upon compliance with statutory dues and procedural requirements.

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? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the facts and circumstances of its case were identical to those in WPMB No.39 of 2025. They relied on the order passed in that writ petition, which permitted the petitioner therein to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order, provided pending returns were furnished and unpaid tax, interest, and penalty were deposited. The petitioner urged that similar liberty should be extended to them. Revenue's Argument: 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.