Ms King Kong Blue Bar And Restaurant vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax

Facts

The petitioner, M/s King Kong Blue Bar And Restaurant, has challenged two orders: one dated 09.01.2023 by respondent No. 3, which cancelled its GST registration for failing to file returns, and another dated 27.02.2026, which rejected its appeal against the cancellation order as being time-barred. The petitioner relies on a previous order from a Coordinate Bench in a similar case (WPMB No. 39 of 2025) where 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 and Services Tax Act, Uttarakhand, have no objection to the present writ 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. 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 and also 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 ratio decidendi is that procedural leniency can be extended in cases with identical factual matrices and where the respondents have no objection, to allow a party to rectify statutory non-compliance and seek revocation of cancellation orders, provided conditions of payment and filing are met. The operative direction is to permit the filing of a revocation application and direct the authority to consider it upon compliance.

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 facts and circumstances of the present case? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argues that in identical facts and circumstances, a Coordinate Bench has permitted the petitioner therein to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. They contend that subject to depositing unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, the competent authority was directed to decide the application for revocation. The petitioner seeks similar liberty. Respondents' Contention: The learned counsel for the respondents has no objection if the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned case.