M/S Aglar Power Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner SGST
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Aglar Power Limited, assailed an order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the Asstt. Commissioner, State Goods & Services Tax, cancelling its 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 an identical case (WPMB No. 39 of 2025), had permitted the petitioner therein to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. This permission was subject to the deposit of unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, with a direction to the competent authority to decide the revocation application. The petitioner sought similar liberty.
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition 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 GST registration cancellation order. The Court directed that if the petitioner filed such an application within two weeks from the date of the order, and also furnished all pending returns and deposited the unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, the Competent Authority would 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 merits 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 WPMB No. 39 of 2025? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that in identical facts and circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench had allowed a similar writ petition by permitting the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. They relied on the operative part of the order in WPMB No. 39 of 2025, which directed the competent authority to consider the revocation application upon filing of pending returns and deposit of unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner urged that similar liberty should be extended to them. Respondent's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the revenue stated that they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the judgment text provided.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT: (per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
1)
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 21.03.2025 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner firm on the ground that it had failed to file the returns within prescribed period. 1
UKHC010108552026
2026:UHC:5090-DB 2)
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 operative part of the order passed in 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.”
3)
It is urged that similar liberty may be granted to the petitioner. 4)
Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue appearing through video conferencing has no 2
UKHC010108552026
2026:UHC:5090-DB objection in case the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms. 5)
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.
Dt: 19TH JUNE, 2026 Negi
3 HIMANS HU NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13aa f116e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d575 7, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC5 1A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C18 DB2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2026.06.19 17:00:27 +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.