Eth Infra Private Limited vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, ETH Infra Private Limited, has challenged an order dated July 3, 2025, passed by the Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, 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 cited a previous order from a Co-ordinate Bench in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, where a similar petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation of cancellation. In that case, the Court directed the petitioner to file the revocation application within two weeks, furnish pending returns, and deposit unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, with the Competent Authority to decide the application within four weeks of receipt.
Held
The Court disposed of the 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 within two weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner must also furnish all pending returns and deposit the unpaid tax along with interest and penalty. Upon fulfillment of these conditions, the Competent Authority is directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The Court did not explicitly decide on the validity of the cancellation order itself but provided a procedural path for revocation.
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 Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that in identical facts and circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench had allowed a similar petitioner to file an application for revocation of cancellation. They relied on the operative part of that order, which permitted the petitioner to move for revocation upon furnishing pending returns and depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner sought similar liberty. Respondent's Contention: The learned counsel for the respondent stated that they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned writ petition.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the judgment text provided, other than 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 Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C. J.)
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 03.07.2025 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner Company on the ground that it had failed to file the returns within prescribed period.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in identical facts and circumstances in WPMB No.39 of 2025 a Co-ordinate Bench has permitted the petitioner therein to file 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
1
UKHC010128322026
2026:UHC:6255-DB
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 appearing for the respondent 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(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 23.07.2026 Rajni
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.