Ms Virender Singh Rawat Contractor vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Dehradun

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Virender Singh Rawat Contractor, has challenged an order dated 13.05.2025 issued by the Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, which cancelled the petitioner's GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file GST returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner sought relief similar to that granted in a previous identical case, WPMB No.39 of 2025, where a Co-ordinate Bench allowed the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order. The State, through its learned Brief Holder, 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 is permitted to move an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order within two weeks from the date of the order. Upon filing such an application, the petitioner must also 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 date of receiving the application. The reasoning is based on the principle of parity and the respondent's lack of objection to such an arrangement, following the established precedent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to apply for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, considering the precedent set in WPMB No.39 of 2025? The petitioner argued that in identical circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench had permitted the petitioner in WPMB No.39 of 2025 to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. This included a direction to deposit unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, and for the competent authority to decide the revocation application. The petitioner contended that similar liberty should be extended to them. The respondents (Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Dehradun, Uttarakhand and Another) stated through their learned Brief Holder that they had no objection to the writ petition being disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned precedent.