Chaudhari Lal vs. Assistant Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Chaudhari Lal, has challenged an order dated March 30, 2025, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods & Services Tax, which cancelled the GST registration of the petitioner's firm. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file GST returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner argued that a coordinate bench of the High Court, in a similar case (WPMB No. 39 of 2025), had allowed the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order. The respondent, represented by the learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, had no objection to the present petition being disposed of on similar terms.
Held
The Court decided to dispose of the writ petition 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. If the petitioner files such an application within two weeks from the date of the order, furnishes all pending returns, and deposits the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty, the Competent Authority shall consider the prayer for revocation in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of receiving the application. The reasoning is based on the precedent set by a coordinate bench in a similar case, and the respondent's lack of objection to this course of action. The ratio decidendi is that procedural leniency can be extended in cases of GST registration cancellation due to non-filing of returns, provided the taxpayer rectifies the default and approaches the authority for revocation.
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? The petitioner contended that in identical facts and circumstances, a coordinate bench had permitted the petitioner in WPMB No. 39 of 2025 to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. The petitioner urged that similar liberty should be extended to them. The respondent, the State of Uttarakhand, through its learned Standing Counsel, stated that they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned case.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the provided text, but the context relates to cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns, which would typically fall under provisions related to registration and cancellation under the GST Act.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT: (per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
1)
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 30.03.2025 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner’s firm on the ground that he had failed to file the returns within prescribed period. 1
2026:UHC:3981-DB 2)
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 said writ petition is as follows :
“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.”
3)
It is urged that similar liberty may be granted to the petitioner. 4)
Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand appearing through V.C. has no objection in case the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms. 2
2026:UHC:3981-DB 5)
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.
Dt: 21ST MAY, 2026 Negi
3 HIMANS HU NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20 d13aaf116e73351fdaf687832638690 8a7f90d5757, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A8099 0FC51A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F8 8DDF7C18DB2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2026.05.21 16:46:59 +05'30'
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.