Indrapalsingh vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissioner
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Indrapalsingh, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated July 17, 2025, which cancelled his GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner argued that in a similar case, WPMB No. 39 of 2025, a Coordinate Bench had allowed the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order. This involved filing pending returns and depositing unpaid tax, along with interest and penalty. The respondents, Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissioner and Superintendent (CGST), Range-I, Roorkee, Haridwar, were represented. The counsel for respondent no. 2 stated they had no objection to the petition being disposed of on similar 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 GST registration cancellation order. The petitioner must file such an application within two weeks from the date of the order. Concurrently, the petitioner is 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 is 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 Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, considering the precedent set in WPMB No. 39 of 2025? (Question of law and procedure) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that identical facts and circumstances warrant similar relief as granted in WPMB No. 39 of 2025. They relied on the operative part of the order in that case, which permitted the petitioner therein to move an application for revocation upon filing pending returns and depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, with a direction to the Competent Authority to decide the application. The petitioner sought similar liberty. Revenue/State's contention: The learned counsel for respondent no. 2 (Superintendent, CGST) stated they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025.
Sections Cited
Not specified in the judgment
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT : (per Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
On oral prayer made by Ms. Shalini Thakral, learned counsel for the petitioner, she is permitted to correct the description of respondent no. 2 in the cause-title. Notice on behalf of the said respondent has been accepted by Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel.
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.07.2025, cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner, on the ground that he 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 1
UKHC010135782026
2026:UHC:6740-DB
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.”
It is urged that similar liberty may be granted to the petitioner.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 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. 7. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
______________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
___________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 03rd August, 2026 Rahul 2
RAHUL PRAJAPATI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=aa4fa3bee6691397758b14516ed 3e66e61bf4c848741983ed8c39e4145cf1d ab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=303B55CC3063D34AC45BF 8A192FCAD15C390A1AAD7B39857D2540 AE4C28A4898, cn=RAHUL PRAJAPATI Date: 2026.08.03 16:46:39 +05'30'
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.