Ms Utkarsh Construction vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Utkarsh Construction, has challenged an order dated July 26, 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 cited a previous order from a Co-ordinate Bench in a similar case, WPMB No. 39 of 2025, where the petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation of cancellation. This involved filing pending returns and depositing unpaid tax along with interest and penalty. The Revenue'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 means the petitioner is permitted to move an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order. If the petitioner files such an application within two weeks from the date of the order, and simultaneously furnishes all pending returns and deposits the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty, the Competent Authority shall consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of receiving the application. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of GST registration cancellation due to non-filing of returns, a procedural concession can be granted to allow for revocation upon compliance with statutory dues and procedural formalities, mirroring previous judicial pronouncements in similar circumstances.

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 Argument: The petitioner contended that in identical facts and circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench had allowed the petitioner in WPMB No. 39 of 2025 to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. This relief was granted subject to the petitioner filing pending returns and depositing unpaid tax along with interest and penalty. The petitioner urged that similar liberty should be extended to them. Revenue's Argument: 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 the aforementioned order.