Ms Rv Enterprises vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Original PDF →
WPMB/479/2026HC UttarakhandGSTCNR UKHC01009986202610 June 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The petitioner, M/s R.V. Enterprises, assailed an order dated January 30, 2025, passed by the competent authority, which cancelled its GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file returns for the prescribed period. The petitioner brought to the Court's attention a previous order in a similar case, Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, where a Co-ordinate Bench had allowed the petitioner therein to apply for revocation of the cancellation. This permission was granted subject to the deposit of unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, and directed the authority to decide the revocation application.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition should be disposed of in the same terms as Writ Petition (M/B) 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 also furnishes all pending returns and deposits the unpaid tax along with 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 receipt of the application. The Court did not explicitly mention any issues left undecided, but the core decision was to grant a procedural opportunity 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 a prior identical case (Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued 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. They urged that similar liberty should be extended to the present petitioner. Revenue/State's contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned prior case.

Sections Cited

Not specified in the judgment

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
2026:UHC:4642-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY Writ Petition (M/B) No.479 of 2026 10th June, 2026 M/s R.V. Enterprises -----Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand Another ----Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Eshan Sachdeva, learned counsel for the petitioner through V.C. Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand through V.C. ----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.)

1.

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 30.01.2025 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner firm on the ground that it has failed to file the returns for prescribed period.

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

1

2026:UHC:4642-DB

of the order passed in the 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.

Learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 has no 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, if any, also stands disposed of.

(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)

(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 10.06.2026 SS

2 SUKHBANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7d d129a8a6380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BE BD2B7D72C42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH Date: 2026.06.11 10:09:40 +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.