Ms Bs Enterprises vs. Commissioner Centre Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Facts

The petitioner, M/s B.S. Enterprises, assailed an order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the Commissioner, Centre Goods & Service Tax Commissionerate, Dehradun, 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 argued that a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court, in a similar case (WPMB No.39 of 2025), had permitted the petitioner therein to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. The petitioner sought similar relief. The respondents, represented by the Commissioner and another authority, had no objection to the writ petition being disposed of on the same terms as the aforementioned case.

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in the same terms as WPMB No.39 of 2025. This means the petitioner, M/s B.S. Enterprises, was permitted to move an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order. The petitioner is required to file this application within two weeks from the date of the order. Furthermore, the petitioner must furnish all pending returns and deposit the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty. Upon receipt of the application and compliance with these conditions, the Competent Authority is directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation of the cancellation order in accordance with the law, within four weeks from the date of receiving the application. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided; it granted the relief sought based on precedent.

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, considering the identical facts and circumstances? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that in an identical case, WPMB No.39 of 2025, a Co-ordinate Bench had permitted the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. The petitioner contended that they should be granted similar liberty. They relied on the operative part of the order in WPMB No.39 of 2025, which allowed the petitioner therein to file an application for revocation within two weeks, furnish pending returns, and deposit unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, with the Competent Authority directed to decide the application within four weeks. Respondents' contention: The learned counsel for the respondents stated that they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No.39 of 2025.