Ms Mansarovar Holidays vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax Dehradun
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Mansarovar Holidays, has challenged an order dated 28.02.2025, passed by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, 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 relies on a previous order from a Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, where a similar petitioner was permitted to file an application for revocation of GST registration cancellation. In that case, the petitioner was allowed to file the revocation application, furnish pending returns, and deposit unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, after which the competent authority was directed to decide the revocation application.
Held
The Court held that the present writ petition should be disposed of in the same terms as Writ Petition (M/B) 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 interest and penalty, the Competent Authority shall consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The reasoning is based on the precedent set by the Coordinate Bench in a similar case with identical facts and circumstances. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to file an application for revocation of the cancellation of its GST registration, similar to the relief granted in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025? The petitioner argued 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. They contended that subject to depositing unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, and furnishing pending returns, the competent authority was directed to decide the revocation application. The petitioner urged that similar liberty should be granted to them. The respondents, represented by Mr. Shobhit Saharia, stated 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 28.02.2025 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner firm on the ground that it had failed to file the returns within prescribed period. 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 1
2026:UHC:3422-DB 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 has no objection in case the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms. 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: 06TH MAY, 2026 Negi 2 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=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC 51A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C 18DB2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2026.05.06 16:51:14 +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.