M/S M/S Parmanand Joshi Gstin vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Parmanand Joshi, has challenged an order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the Commissioner, State Goods & Services Tax Commissionerate, 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, in a similar case (WPMB No.39 of 2025), had allowed 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 petitioner sought similar relief. The Revenue had no objection to the petition being disposed of on the same 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 cancellation order within two weeks from the date of the order. Upon filing such an application, the petitioner must also furnish all pending returns and deposit the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty. The Competent Authority is then 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 reasoning is based on precedent from a Co-ordinate Bench dealing with identical facts and circumstances, and the Revenue's lack of objection to this course of action. The principle is that procedural leniency can be granted in cases of non-compliance with filing requirements, provided the statutory dues are cleared and a formal application for revocation is made.

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 failed to file returns within the prescribed period. 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 permission was contingent upon the petitioner furnishing all pending returns and depositing the unpaid tax along with interest and penalty. The petitioner argued that similar liberty should be extended to them. The Revenue, 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 the aforementioned case.