Shahjad vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, Shahjad, challenged an order dated 05.07.2025 that cancelled his GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner relied on a previous order from a Co-ordinate Bench in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, where a similar petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation of GST registration cancellation. In that prior case, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application for revocation within two weeks, furnish pending returns, and deposit unpaid tax along with interest and penalty. The Competent Authority was then directed to decide the revocation application within four weeks of receipt. The Revenue's counsel admitted that the present controversy was covered by the aforementioned order.

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition was 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 GST registration cancellation order. The petitioner must file this application within two weeks from the date of the order. Concurrently, the petitioner must furnish all pending returns and deposit the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty. Upon fulfillment of these conditions, the Competent Authority is 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 the Co-ordinate Bench in a case with identical facts and the admission by the Revenue that the present case is covered by that precedent. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, in light of a previous order by a Co-ordinate Bench in identical facts and circumstances, should be granted liberty to move an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that in a similar case (WPMB No. 39 of 2025), a Co-ordinate Bench had allowed the petitioner to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. This involved furnishing pending returns and depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, with the Competent Authority directed to decide the application. The petitioner sought similar liberty. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's counsel admitted that the controversy in the present case was covered by the order passed in the afore-said case (WPMB No. 39 of 2025).