Shri Ganpati Associates vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Ganpati Associates, has challenged an order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Dehradun, which cancelled the petitioner's GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner sought relief by referring to a previous order of a Co-ordinate Bench in a similar case, WPMB No.39 of 2025. In that case, the petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, with the authority directed to decide the application.

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 cancellation order. The petitioner must file this application within two weeks from the date of the order. Concurrently, they must furnish all pending returns and deposit the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty. Upon fulfillment of 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 receipt of such application. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, as the matter was resolved based on precedent and the respondent's no-objection.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to file an application for revocation of the cancellation of their GST registration, similar to the relief granted in WPMB No.39 of 2025? The petitioner argued that in identical facts and circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench had allowed the petitioner in WPMB No.39 of 2025 to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. They contended that this application should be subject to the deposit of unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, and the competent authority should be directed to decide it. The petitioner urged that similar liberty should be extended to them. The respondents (Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Dehradun & Anr.) stated that they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned case.