Ms Uk Traders vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

The petitioner, M/s UK Traders, assailed an order dated April 28, 2021, passed by the competent authority, which cancelled its 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 writ petition, WPMB No. 39 of 2025, where the court allowed the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order. The State/respondents had no objection to the present petition being disposed of on similar terms. The tax period and the amount in dispute were not explicitly stated in the judgment.

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 cancellation order. If the petitioner files such an application within two weeks from the date of the order and furnishes all pending returns, along with depositing the unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, the Competent Authority shall consider the prayer for revocation in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The reasoning is based on precedent set by a Co-ordinate Bench in an identical case. The operative direction is to allow the petitioner to pursue revocation subject to compliance with specific conditions. No issue was expressly left undecided.

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. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that in identical facts and circumstances in WPMB No. 39 of 2025, a Co-ordinate Bench had permitted the petitioner therein to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. They argued that subject to depositing unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, the competent authority was directed to decide the application. The petitioner urged that similar liberty should be granted to them. Revenue/State's Argument: The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State/respondent nos. 1 and 2 stated that they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025.