Radhey Shyam Yadav vs. Assistant Commissioner Pithoragarh

Original PDF →

WPMB/389/2026HC UttarakhandGSTCNR UKHC01008160202618 May 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY3 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The petitioner, Radhey Shyam Yadav, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging an order dated 31.08.2024. This order, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, cancelled the GST registration of the petitioner's firm. The grounds for cancellation were stated to be fraud, willful misstatement, and suppression of facts. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner intended to apply for revocation of the cancellation after depositing the entire tax liability, and requested the Court to direct the department to consider such an application. The revenue's counsel agreed that the application would be considered if the entire tax amount was deposited.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by allowing the petitioner to seek revocation of the GST registration cancellation. This is contingent upon the petitioner depositing the entire amount of tax due against the firm, as per any orders previously passed by the department. Upon such deposit, the department is directed to consider the petitioner's revocation application in accordance with the law. The Court did not delve into the merits of the cancellation order itself, nor did it decide on the validity of the grounds for cancellation (fraud, willful misstatement, suppression of facts). The primary finding was that the petitioner has the liberty to pursue revocation by fulfilling the tax liability, and the department is obligated to consider this application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek revocation of GST registration cancellation upon depositing the entire tax liability, and if so, whether the department should be directed to consider such an application in accordance with law? This issue turns on the interpretation and application of provisions related to GST registration cancellation and revocation, potentially under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (SGST Act). The petitioner argued that they are willing to deposit the entire tax liability and seek revocation, requesting the department to consider their application. The revenue contended that the application for revocation would be considered if the entire tax amount is deposited.

Sections Cited

CGST Act, 2017, SGST Act, 2017

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

2026:UHC:3800-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 389 OF 2026 18TH MAY, 2026 Radhey Shyam Yadav …… Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner & another …… Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Tiwari, learned counsel through video conferencing Counsel for the respondents : Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing Counsel for the State through video conferencing The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)

The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 31.08.2024 by which GST registration of his firm has been cancelled on the ground of fraud, willful misstatement and suppression of facts. 1

2026:UHC:3800-DB 2)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would apply for revocation after depositing the entire tax liability and the department be directed to consider the revocation application. 3)

Ms. Puja Banga, learned counsel appearing for the revenue, submits that in case the entire tax amount is deposited, the application would be considered. 4)

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek revocation after depositing the entire amount of tax due against the firm in pursuance of any order passed by the department so far, and in which event, the application would be considered by the department in accordance with law. 5)

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

_______________________

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.

_________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.

Dt: 18TH MAY, 2026 Negi

2 HIMANS HU NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13aaf 116e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d575 7, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC5 1A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C18 DB2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2026.05.18 17:13:17 +05'30'

2026:UHC:3800-DB

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.