M/B Himalayan Energy Solution vs. State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Himalayan Energy Solution, has challenged an order dated 06.11.2024, passed by the State Tax Officer, 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 sought similar relief as granted in a previous identical writ petition, WPMB No. 39 of 2025. In that case, the court had permitted the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, and directed the authority to decide the application. The respondent's counsel had no objection to the present petition being disposed of on similar terms.

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 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 was directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The reasoning was based on the precedent set by a Coordinate Bench in an identical matter, and the respondent's lack of objection to such a disposal.

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, considering the identical facts and circumstances? The petitioner argued that in a previous case with identical facts and circumstances, a Coordinate Bench had allowed the petitioner to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. This relief was granted subject to the deposit of unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, with a direction to the competent authority to decide the application. The petitioner contended that similar liberty should be extended to them. The respondent, represented by the State Tax Officer, stated that they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned case.