Al Karam Hide vs. Commissioner SGST

Facts

The petitioner, Al Karam Hide, has challenged an order dated December 18, 2025, which cancelled its GST registration. This cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file returns within the prescribed period, as indicated by a Show Cause Notice dated November 15, 2025. The petitioner argued that a Coordinate Bench had previously granted similar relief in an identical case, WPMB No. 39 of 2025. In that case, the petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. The respondents, represented by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, and another, had no objection to the present petition being disposed of on similar terms.

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, Al Karam Hide, is permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order of its GST registration. 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 such an application and compliance with the deposit requirements, 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. No specific issue was expressly left undecided, as the Court adopted the precedent from a prior, similar case.

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 WPMB No. 39 of 2025? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that in identical facts and circumstances, a Coordinate Bench in WPMB No. 39 of 2025 had permitted the petitioner therein to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. They relied on the operative part of that order, which allowed the petitioner to move for revocation within two weeks, subject to furnishing pending returns and depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner urged that similar liberty should be granted to them. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for the respondents stated that they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025.