Ms Hardev Rawal Electricals vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Hardev Rawal Electricals, has challenged an order dated 13.03.2023, which cancelled its GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner brought to the court's attention a previous order from a Coordinate Bench in a similar case, WPMB No. 39 of 2025. In that case, the petitioner was permitted to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. The respondents, represented by the Commissioner, State Goods & Services Tax, and another, had no objection to the present petition being disposed of on similar terms.
Held
The Court decided to dispose of the present Writ Petition in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025. The operative part of the order in WPMB No. 39 of 2025, which was adopted here, permits the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order within two weeks from the date of the order. If the petitioner files such an application and furnishes all pending returns, along with the deposit of unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, the Competent Authority shall consider the prayer for revocation within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application, in accordance with the law. The reasoning is based on the precedent set by the Coordinate Bench in a similar case and the lack of objection from the respondents. No specific section of the GST Act was discussed in detail, but the decision implicitly relates to the provisions governing cancellation and revocation of GST registration.
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 WPMB No. 39 of 2025? Petitioner's argument: 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. They argued that subject to depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, the competent authority was directed to decide the revocation application. The petitioner sought similar liberty. Respondent's argument: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State of Uttarakhand stated that they had no objection if the present Writ Petition was disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT : (per Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 13.03.2023, cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner- firm, on the ground that it has failed to file the returns within the prescribed period.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in identical facts and circumstances, in WPMB No. 39 of 2025, a Coordinate Bench has permitted the petitioner therein to file an 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 1
2026:UHC:3263-DB
operative part of the order passed in the 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.”
It is urged that similar liberty may be granted to the petitioner.
Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State of Uttarakhand has no objection, in case the present Writ Petition is disposed of in the same terms.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the same terms, as WPMB No. 39 of 2025. 6. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
______________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
___________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 29th April, 2026 Rahul 2
RAHUL PRAJAPATI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=aa4fa3bee6691397758b14516ed3e6 6e61bf4c848741983ed8c39e4145cf1dab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=303B55CC3063D34AC45BF8A1 92FCAD15C390A1AAD7B39857D2540AE4C28 A4898, cn=RAHUL PRAJAPATI Date: 2026.04.30 11:18:57 +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.