Jai Veer Bhadreshwar Construction Jv vs. Superintendent Central Goods And Service Tax

Facts

The petitioner, Jai Veer Bhadreshwar Construction JV, has challenged an order dated 26.02.2023, passed by the Superintendent, 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 argued that a co-ordinate bench of the High Court, in a similar case (WPMB No.39 of 2025), had granted relief by allowing the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner sought similar liberty. The respondent, represented by the Standing Counsel for the State, had no objection to the petition being disposed of on the same terms.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition should be disposed of 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. To avail this opportunity, the petitioner must file the application within two weeks from the date of the order. Additionally, the petitioner must furnish all pending returns and deposit the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty. Upon fulfillment of these conditions, the Competent Authority is directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation of the cancellation order in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, as the matter was resolved by following a precedent.

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 petitioner's failure to file returns within the prescribed period. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner contended that in identical facts and circumstances, a co-ordinate bench had permitted the petitioner in WPMB No.39 of 2025 to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. This relief was contingent upon the deposit of unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, and a direction to the competent authority to decide the application within a specified timeframe. The petitioner urged that similar liberty should be extended to them. Respondent's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondent stated that they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No.39 of 2025.