Ms Baba Stones vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST

Original PDF →
WPMB/217/2026HC UttarakhandGSTCNR UKHC01004924202601 April 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Baba Stones, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 19.05.2025 passed by the Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST & Anr. This order cancelled the petitioner's GST registration due to failure to file returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner argued that a Co-ordinate Bench, in an identical case (WPMB No.39 of 2025), had permitted the petitioner therein to apply for revocation of the cancellation order. This was subject to the deposit of unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, with the competent authority directed to decide the revocation application. The petitioner sought similar relief.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition in the same terms as WPMB No.39 of 2025. This meant the petitioner was permitted to move an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order. The petitioner was required to file such an application within two weeks from the date of the order. Additionally, the petitioner had to furnish all pending returns and deposit the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty. Upon fulfillment of these conditions, the Competent Authority was directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided, as the matter was resolved by following a previous order.

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? The petitioner contended that in identical circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench had allowed the petitioner to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order, provided pending returns were furnished and unpaid tax, along with interest and penalty, was deposited. The petitioner argued for similar liberty in its case. The respondents (Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST & Anr.) stated that they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No.39 of 2025.

Sections Cited

None explicitly mentioned in the judgment text.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
2026:UHC:2293-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY Writ Petition (M/B) No.217 of 2026 April 1, 2026 M/s Baba Stones ----Petitioner Versus Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST & Anr. ----Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------ Presence:- Mr. Harshvardhan Dhanik and Mr. Jasmeet Sahota, learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents through V.C.

JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.)

1.

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 19.05.2025 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner firm on the ground that it has failed to file the returns within prescribed period.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in identical facts and circumstances in WPMB No.39 of 2025 a Co-ordinate Bench has permitted the petitioner therein to file 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

1

2026:UHC:2293-DB

order. The 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.”

3.

It is urged that similar liberty may be granted to the petitioner.

4.

Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand appearing through V.C. has no objection in case the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms.

5.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No.39 of 2025. 6. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)

(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 01.04.2026 Rajni

2 RAJINI GUSAIN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db484 48ac3701a9ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f17 d01342, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222B 4DF4FC80D4557562F95BEBA013F5306 16A158A0A878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN Date: 2026.04.01 17:50:47 +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.