Raj Security Service And Labour Contractor vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax

Facts

The petitioner, Raj Security Service & Labour Contractor, challenged an order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the Commissioner State Goods & Services Tax, 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 argued that in a similar case, WPMB No.39 of 2025, a Co-ordinate Bench had allowed the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner sought similar relief. The respondents/revenue had no objection to the petition being disposed of on the same terms.

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 furnishing all pending returns, along with the deposit of unpaid tax, 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 leave any issue undecided, as the matter was resolved by directing the parties to follow the precedent. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of GST registration cancellation due to non-filing of returns, a High Court can grant liberty to the petitioner to seek revocation by complying with statutory requirements, following a prior similar order.

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 contention: The petitioner argued that identical facts and circumstances existed as in WPMB No.39 of 2025, where a Co-ordinate Bench permitted the petitioner to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. They relied on the operative part of that order, which directed the competent authority to decide the revocation application subject to the petitioner filing pending returns and depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner requested similar liberty. Revenue's contention: The learned 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.