Shivam Sagar vs. Superintendent Central Goods And Service Tax, Range I Haldwani, Uttarakhand

Facts

The petitioner, Shivam Sagar, has challenged an order dated 23.03.2025 passed by the Superintendent, Central Goods and Service Tax, Range-1, Haldwani, which 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 their GST registration cancellation. In that case, the Court directed the petitioner to file the revocation application within two weeks, furnish pending returns, and deposit unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, after which the Competent Authority was to decide the application within four weeks.

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. 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 receipt of the application and compliance with 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 receiving the application. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of identical facts and circumstances, courts should follow their previous pronouncements to ensure consistency and fairness in the administration of justice. The operative direction is to allow the petitioner to apply for revocation subject to conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, considering the identical facts and circumstances, specifically regarding the opportunity to apply for revocation of GST registration cancellation? (Question of law and fact, relating to principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since the facts and circumstances are identical to those in WPMB No. 39 of 2025, a similar liberty should be granted to him to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. He sought to follow the precedent set by the Co-ordinate Bench. Respondent's contention: The learned counsel for the respondent stated that they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025.