Ms I Tech Packaging Systems vs. Superintendent Central Goods And Service Tax Department

Facts

The petitioner, M/s I. Tech Packaging Systems, has challenged an order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the Superintendent, Central Goods and Service Tax Department, Kichha, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand. This order cancelled the petitioner's GST registration on the grounds of failure to file returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner relies on a previous order from a Co-ordinate Bench in Writ Petition (M/B) No.39 of 2025, which dealt with identical facts and circumstances. In that prior case, the petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, with the authority directed to decide the 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 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 the precedent set by a Co-ordinate Bench in an identical matter, and the respondent's lack of objection to this course of action. The ratio decidendi is that procedural leniency can be extended in cases with identical factual matrices and where the respondent consents, allowing a taxpayer an opportunity to rectify defaults leading to registration cancellation.

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 Writ Petition (M/B) No.39 of 2025, considering identical facts and circumstances? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that since the facts and circumstances are identical to those in WPMB No.39 of 2025, where a Co-ordinate Bench allowed the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order upon fulfilling certain conditions, similar liberty should be granted to them. They relied on the operative part of the order in the aforementioned writ petition. Respondent's Argument: The learned counsel for the respondent had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No.39 of 2025.