Akshay Nainwal vs. State Of Uttarakhand
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Akshay Nainwal, has challenged an order dated 18.01.2025 passed by the respondents, which cancelled the GST registration of the petitioner-firm. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file GST returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner cited a previous order from a Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, where a similar situation was dealt with. 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. The competent authority was then directed to decide the revocation application.
Held
The Court decided to dispose of the present writ petition in the same terms as Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025. This means the petitioner is permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. The petitioner must file this application within two weeks from the date of the order. Additionally, the petitioner is required to furnish all pending returns and deposit the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty. Upon receipt of such an application and compliance with the conditions, the Competent Authority shall consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation of the cancellation order in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of receiving the application. The ratio of the decision 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 fulfilling the statutory requirements, following the precedent set in similar cases.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be granted similar liberty as granted in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, allowing them to apply for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order? The petitioner argued that their case is identical to the facts and circumstances of Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, and therefore, they should be granted similar relief. They relied on the operative part of the order in the aforementioned writ petition, which permitted the petitioner therein to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to fulfilling certain conditions. The respondents, represented by the learned Standing Counsel, stated that they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the judgment text provided, beyond the general reference to GST registration and returns.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT: (per Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 18.01.2025 passed by respondents cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner-firm on the ground that the petitioner has failed to file the returns within the prescribed period.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in identical facts and circumstances in WPMB No. 39 of 2025, a Coordinate Bench has permitted the petitioner therein to file an 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. 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.”
1
UKHC010136822026
2026:UHC:6792-DB
It is urged that similar liberty may be granted to the petitioner.
Ms. Puja Banga, learned counsel for the respondents, has no objection in case the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms.
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: 04.08.2026 KKS/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.