Pooran Chandra Verma vs. State Of Uttarakhand
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Pooran Chandra Verma, has challenged an order dated November 27, 2024, passed by the GST authorities, which cancelled the firm's GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file GST returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner relies on a previous order from a Co-ordinate Bench in a similar case, WPMB No.39 of 2025. In that case, the Court allowed the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, directing them to file pending returns and deposit unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. The competent authority was then instructed to decide the revocation application within a specified timeframe.
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 cancellation order. The petitioner must file this application within two weeks from the date of the order. Concurrently, they 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 procedural fairness and consistency in judicial pronouncements warrant granting similar relief in identical factual matrices, provided the statutory conditions for revocation are met.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to apply for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, similar to the relief granted in WPMB No.39 of 2025, considering the identical facts and circumstances? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under GST law). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since a Co-ordinate Bench had granted similar relief in an identical case (WPMB No.39 of 2025), the same liberty should be extended to them. They sought permission to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to fulfilling the conditions laid down in the previous order. Revenue's contention: The State/revenue submitted that they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No.39 of 2025.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the judgment text provided.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.)
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.11.2024 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner firm on the ground that it had failed to file the returns within prescribed period.
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 of the order passed in the said writ petition is as follows:
1
2026:UHC:4201-DB
“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.”
It is urged that similar liberty may be granted to the petitioner.
Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State/respondent nos.1 to 4 has no objection in case the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No.39 of 2025. 6. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 27.05.2026 Rajni
2
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.