Ms Bhagwati Enterprises vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Bhagwati Enterprises, assailed an order dated 18.12.2025 passed by the respondent authorities, which cancelled its GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner argued that the case was identical to a previous writ petition (WPMB No. 39 of 2025) where a Coordinate Bench had granted relief. In that prior case, the petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, and filing pending returns. The respondents' counsel had no objection to the present petition being disposed of on similar terms.
Held
The Court held that the present writ petition should be disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that the facts and circumstances were identical to the earlier case, and the respondents' counsel had no objection to this course of action. The operative directions from the earlier case, which were adopted here, permit the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order within two weeks from the date of the order. Upon such an application, the petitioner must furnish all pending returns and deposit the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty. The Competent Authority is then directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation in accordance with the law within four weeks from the receipt of the application. No issue was expressly left undecided.
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 Argument: The petitioner contended that the facts and circumstances of the present case are identical to WPMB No. 39 of 2025. They relied on the operative part of the order in that writ petition, which permitted the petitioner therein to move an application for revocation of cancellation, provided pending returns were furnished and unpaid tax along with interest and penalty were deposited. The petitioner urged that similar liberty should be extended to them. Respondents' Argument: The learned counsel for the respondents/CGST stated 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 Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
1)
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 18.12.2025 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner firm on the ground that it had failed to file the returns within prescribed period. 1
2026:UHC:3798-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)
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel appearing for the respondents / CGST has no objection in case the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms. 2
2026:UHC:3798-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: 18TH MAY, 2026 Negi
3 HIMANS HU NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13 aaf116e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90 d5757, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990F C51A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF 7C18DB2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2026.05.18 17:12:19 +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.