Harish Kumar Kukreja vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax

Facts

The petitioner, Harish Kumar Kukreja, has challenged an order dated 21.10.2024, passed by the Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Dehradun, which cancelled his GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner argued that a Co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court, in a similar case (WPMB No.39 of 2025), had allowed the petitioner therein to apply for revocation of their cancellation order, subject to depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. The State's counsel had no objection to a similar order being passed in the present case.

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. 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 applicable interest and penalty, the Competent Authority shall consider the prayer for revocation in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, as the matter was resolved by following a 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? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under GST law). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that in identical circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench had permitted the petitioner to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to compliance with certain conditions. They sought similar liberty. Revenue/State's contention: The learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents stated that they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of on the same terms as the aforementioned case.